Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Systematic approach to address challenges in microsurfacing mix design

Nishant Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah ⇑, Teiborlang Lyngdoh Ryntathiang
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

h i g h l i g h t s

Assessment of filler characteristics to rectify issues related to rapid breaking.

Determining role of mineral filler, emulsifier dosage, asphalt binder type and solvent.

Evaluating performance in terms of cohesion, raveling, rutting and bleeding resistance.

Use of narrow range diagram for better interpretation of mix design results.

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

Article history: This paper presents a systematic laboratory approach for microsurfacing mix design to address the chal-
Received 19 February 2020 lenges faced due to multiple components and associated chemical complexity. A comprehensive labora-
Received in revised form 4 June 2020 tory study was undertaken to understand the variation in microsurfacing mix performance with respect
Accepted 17 November 2020
to filler characteristics, mineral filler and emulsion components including emulsifier dosage, asphalt bin-
Available online 10 December 2020
der type and solvent. First, replacement of filler was done to address the issue of pre-mature breaking
which was related to very high reactivity of aggregates. Next, the type and dosage of mineral filler was
Keywords:
selected using cohesion test. Interestingly, the combination of cement (2%) and fly ash (1%) imparted
Microsurfacing
Mix design
highest cohesion highlighting the benefits associated with incorporation of waste materials having poz-
Mineral filler zolanic characteristics in the mix. In terms of emulsion components, use of higher emulsifier dosage
Emulsifier dosage showed a delay in the curing process which in turn, resulted in inferior cohesion, raveling and rutting
Asphalt type resistance. Further, incorporation of harder asphalt binder and the use of solvent during emulsion pro-
Solvent duction resulted in reduction in rutting by>61%. Raveling resistance was also found to be dependent
Cohesion on the use of solvent indicating the importance of maintaining equiviscous temperature during emulsion
Raveling production. From the results, a narrow range diagram illustrating the acceptable range of emulsion con-
Rutting
tent considering all design parameters was recommended to determine optimum emulsion content
(OEC). The mid-point of acceptable emulsion content range was termed as OEC which, in the present
study, was found to be 14% by dry weight of aggregates.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Microsurfacing is a combination of polymer-modified emulsion,

crushed aggregates, water, and mineral filler [5]. It is applied as a
Over the years, the primary focus of researchers all over the thin layer (4 to 8 mm) at ambient temperature to preserve the
world has been to adopt strategies to promote sustainable devel- underlying pavement layers [5]. The microsurfacing mix after
opment in all fields of engineering. In the pavement industry, pre- application cures and gains strength with time as a result of the
ventive maintenance has become an integral part to introduce chemical reaction between the quick-setting emulsion and aggre-
sustainability in the construction of roads and its use [1,2]. In this gate surface. The emulsifier adsorbs on the aggregate surface creat-
respect, microsurfacing, a cost-effective and eco-friendly preserva- ing a lipophilic surface. The asphalt droplets flocculates on the
tion technique, has emerged as one of the prominent sustainable aggregate surface and displaces water to form an asphalt film
technology [3,4]. around aggregates [6]. In addition, mineral filler interacts with
emulsion resulting in an increase in the stiffness of the mastic
and better asphalt-aggregate adhesion. The important factors con-
⇑ Corresponding author. tributing to the curing process which require detailed understand-
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.K. Siddagangaiah), [email protected] ing are aggregate characteristics and gradation, emulsifier
(T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121759
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah and T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

chemistry and dosage, asphalt type and content, particle size dis- ing the performance and cost constraints. Each component of the
tribution of asphalt droplets and environmental conditions [7]. mix interacts with the other components and forms chemically
complex compound. Insufficient understanding of the interaction
1.1. Background mechanism often leads to several unavoidable challenges during
mix design such as early breaking, incompatible aggregate-
Aggregate properties like mineralogical composition, cleanli- emulsion, delay in strength development and durability concerns
ness, clay content, soundness, abrasion resistance, and reactivity due to insufficient adhesion or stiffness. To address these chal-
play a major role in breaking process as well as performance due lenges, the role of each component including aggregate, emulsion,
to the fast-setting characteristics of microsurfacing mix [8,9]. The and mineral filler on microsurfacing mix behavior require further
aggregate-emulsion compatibility is primarily dependent on the understanding.
mineralogical composition of the aggregates, which influence the
adhesive and cohesive properties of the microsurfacing mix. 1.2. Objective
Besides, the presence of deleterious materials like clay, dust, or silt
on the aggregate surface significantly influences the reaction rate The objective of the study was to understand and systematically
due to emulsifier adsorption on the deleterious materials [9]. address the problems faced during the microsurfacing mix design.
Therefore, cleanliness of aggregates is necessary for allowing The following tasks were laid down to fulfil the mentioned
proper adhesion of binder on the aggregate surface [10]. Along objective.
with mineralogical composition and cleanliness, soundness and
abrasion resistance of aggregates influence the resistance of micro-
Identify the reason for rapid emulsion breaking with local
surfacing to weathering action of freeze–thaw cycle and traffic and aggregates and explore the possible solution of filler replace-
hence, contributes to mix durability [11]. So, assessment of aggre- ment to address the issue related to high reactivity.
gate and filler characteristics is the first and the most critical step
Understand the effect of mineral filler on cohesion development
to ensure compatibility and durability of microsurfacing mix. How- and determine the type and dosage of mineral filler to meet the
ever, limited studies have quantified the role of aggregate proper- cohesion requirement.
ties like cleanliness, clay content, mineralogical composition etc.
Quantify the performance variability, in terms of cohesion, rav-
on the performance of microsurfacing mix. eling and rutting resistance, with changes in emulsifier dosage,
Another important factor contributing to microsurfacing mix asphalt binder type and solvent.
behavior is emulsion. Generally, cationic emulsions are used in
Assign optimum emulsion content using narrow range diagram
microsurfacing mix. The properties of the emulsion are mainly considering all the design parameters.
dependent on the formulation of the components selected for its
production like emulsifier type and dosage, acid content, binder 2. Methodology
grade and content, and type and dosage of polymer modifier [7].
In turn, these characteristics of emulsion play a pivotal role in The research methodology adopted to fulfill the objective is
ensuring the workability as well as durability of microsurfacing illustrated in the form of a flow chart in Fig. 1. Initially, it was
mix. observed that the emulsion was breaking rapidly after its addition
Emulsion acts as a thermodynamically meta-stable system in to aggregates. Since fillers i.e., material passing 75 lm sieve, con-
which the instability is caused due to high interfacial tension tributes substantially to the reactivity of emulsion at the aggregate
between asphalt and water phases [12]. In order to prevent coales- surface due to its comparatively larger surface area, the filler of the
cence of asphalt droplets, the emulsifier is used to kinetically sta- Source A aggregate was replaced by the filler of the Source B aggre-
bilize the emulsion [13,14]. Since the emulsifier is an expensive gate. Next, different dosages of mineral filler were added to the mix
raw material, assigning a proper dosage of emulsifier is necessary to address the problem of insufficient strength development. Here,
to ensure the stability of emulsion at a minimal cost. cohesion test was used as a parameter to demarcate the strength
Along with aggregates and emulsion, mineral filler also plays an developed among different mixes. After that, different emulsifier
important role in microsurfacing performance by ensuring suffi- dosages were used to produce emulsion to ensure stability of both
cient resistance to fracture and crack propagation, adequate stiff- emulsion and mix. For the emulsifier used in the study, the recom-
ness to mastic and minimizing segregation [5,15,16]. Generally, mended dosage as per manufacturer was 1.5% to 2.5% for the pro-
Portland cement is used as mineral filler in microsurfacing [17] duction of cationic quick setting emulsion. So, for covering the
with the recommended dosage in the range of 0–3% [5]. In micro- entire range, three dosages, i.e., 1.5%, 2.0% and 2.5%, were selected.
surfacing, the addition of Portland cement to emulsion leads to an The performance of the mix produced with emulsion having differ-
increase in the pH of emulsion from 2 to 3 to 11–12. Simultane- ent emulsifier dosages was assessed in terms of cohesion, raveling
ously, the dissolution of cement results in the release of Ca2+ ions and rutting.
which leads to destabilization of asphalt emulsion [18,19]. The Subsequently, due to the inadequate rutting resistance of the
hydration products formed by the interaction between cement mix, harder binder grade (VG-30) was used in place of softer binder
and asphalt emulsion increases the asphalt binder stiffness and grade (VG-10). In order to improve the storage stability of emul-
adhesion at the mastic-aggregate interface [20]. Studies had also sion produced with VG-30, solvent was added in the asphalt during
shown that the fly ash could be used as a sustainable alternative emulsion production. The addition of solvent reduced the viscosity
to cement as mineral filler [21,22]. However, incorporation of both of asphalt and the rate of coalescence reduced. The variation in
cement and fly ash in the microsurfacing mix is still an unexplored performance due to asphalt type and solvent was quantified in
area which requires extensive laboratory and field investigations terms of cohesion, raveling and rutting resistance.
for further understanding. Finally, with the combination of emulsion components and
Even though the dependence of microsurfacing behavior on the mineral filler dosages providing superior performance, mix design
above-mentioned parameters is well-established, limited studies as per ISSA guidelines was conducted. However, to improve the
had accounted for the issues in microsurfacing performance interpretation of test results, a narrow range diagram was used
assessment during mix design. Several factors like emulsifier to determine the optimum emulsion content instead of the con-
dosage, asphalt type, solvent, filler characteristics and mineral filler ventional practice of using abrasion loss and sand adhesion test
type and dosage, needs to be assigned during mix design consider- results.
2
N. Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah and T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

Emulsion and mix

Rapid breaking of
Insufficient strength stability
emulsion
Mineral filler addition Emulsifier dosage
Filler replacement
variation

Mix Design Emulsion stability Stiffness of mix

Narrow range with harder binder Use of harder binder
diagram Use of solvent grade

Fig. 1. Research methodology.

3. Materials 100

Cumulative % passing
3.1. Aggregates 80

In this study, aggregates were procured from a locally available 60

source. The physical properties of aggregates used are shown in
Table 1. Mid-point of Type II gradation, specified in ISSA A143, 40
was adopted in the study. Along with the adopted gradation
(mid-point of Type II gradation), the upper and lower limit of ISSA 20
Type II gradation is shown in Fig. 2.
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
3.2. Emulsion
Sieve size, mm
Emulsion (cationic quick setting) was produced in the labora- Lower limit Upper limt Adopted gradation
tory using the colloid mill. Emulsifier and SBR latex were added
at the rate of 1.5% and 3.5% by the weight of emulsion and the Fig. 2. Aggregate gradation.

pH of the soap solution was kept at 2 ± 0.05. Viscosity grade 

10 (VG-10) was used as base asphalt. Asphalt additive, used for
consistency test was conducted to determine desirable water con-
assisting in the breaking process of emulsion, was added to asphalt
tent. The sample preparation for consistency test includes mixing
at the rate of 0.5% by weight of asphalt.
of 500 g dried aggregates with the desired amount of mineral filler
The physical properties of the emulsion and emulsion residue of
and water followed by the addition of emulsion. The components
the initial formulations are shown in Table 2. In addition, this study
are mixed for 30 s and poured on a flow scale having a cone cen-
explores the performance variability associated with emulsifier
tered over it. Immediately after pouring the mix, the excess mix
dosage (1.5%, 2% and 2.5%), asphalt type (VG-10 and VG-30) and
was trimmed off, and the cone was removed in a smooth, vertical
solvent (with and without solvent) on the emulsion and mix prop-
motion. The mix was allowed to flow freely, and the outflow was
erties. Results of the investigations, presented in Table 2, would be
measured at four different points to get consistency [24].
discussed in the subsequent sections.

4. Experimental protocols 4.2. Performance testing

4.1. Preliminary investigations In this study, cohesion, raveling, and rutting resistance were
considered for performance assessment. For all performance tests,
The preliminary investigations included mix time and consis- three replicates were prepared. Initially, the dried aggregates were
tency test for determination of workability of the mix. In mix time screened through 4.75 mm sieve. The sample preparation was sim-
test, 100 g dried aggregate was mixed with the desired amount of ilar to consistency test where 150 g, 800 g, and 550 g dried aggre-
mineral filler and water. Subsequently, the emulsion was added gates along with the desired amount of mineral filler, water, and
and mixed, and the time at which the mix breaks were noted down the emulsion was used for mix production.
[23]. For the formulations with mix time greater than 120 s, the In cohesion test, the sample was poured on a 6 mm ring mold
placed on an asphalt felt. Then, the ring mold was removed, and
the sample was placed under the neoprene foot of the cohesion
Table 1 tester. Air pressure was set at 200 kPa, and the foot was lowered.
Physical properties of aggregates. Then, torque meter was rotated through 90 to 120° arc with one
Property Results Specification Limits hand while holding the sample with another hand. Torque reading
Bulk specific gravity of aggregates 2.888 –
was noted down along with the mode of rupture [25].
Water absorption 1.0% – For wet track abrasion test (WTAT), the sample was poured on
Soundness with Na2SO4 8.9% 15% max. an aluminum plate having a mold of diameter 248 mm and height
Abrasion value 17.7% 30% max. 6.35 mm placed over it. Then, the sample was air-cured for 3 h, fol-
Sand Equivalent Value 81.7 65 min.
lowed by curing in an oven for 24 h at 60 °C. The sample was then
3
N. Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah and T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

Table 2
Physical properties of emulsion and emulsion residue.

Emulsion Component E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 Specified Limits

Asphalt type VG-10 VG-10 VG-10 VG-30 VG-30
Emulsifier Dosage (by weight of emulsion) 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Solvent (by weight of asphalt) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Test on emulsion
Viscosity (SFS) 39 32 37 39.5 45 20–100
Particle Charge Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
Sieve test, % 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.1% max
Storage stability, 24 h, % 0.3 0.5 0.5 2.3 0.3 1% max
Residue, % 65 64.4 64.6 65.1 65.0 62% min
Test on emulsion residue
Ductility, 25 °C, cm >100 >100 >100 > 100 > 100 40 cm min
Softening Point, °C 61 58 60 65.5 65 57 °C min
Penetration (25 °C), 0.1 mm 54 56 0 43 45 40–90

allowed to cool at room temperature after which it was kept in a Table 3

water bath for 1 h or 6 days at 25 °C. Then, the sample was abraded Physical properties of fillers.
in abrasion machine for 315 s, and the abrasion loss was noted Properties Filler A Filler B
down [26]. Specific Gravity of filler 2.915 2.794
The rutting resistance evaluation was conducted using loaded Methylene blue value (MBV) 15.5 2.55
wheel tester (LWT). In LWT, samples having depth, width and Rigden voids, % 34.2 37.3
length of 12.7 mm, 50.8 mm and 381 mm respectively were pre- pH 8.05 7.88
pared. The samples were air-cured for 24 h, followed by oven cur-
ing for 24 h at 60 °C. The sample is then allowed to cool to room
temperature after which the sample was placed in the LWT In general, the physical properties of fillers indicate that the break-
machine. Load of 56.7 kg was applied for 1000 cycles and the ing and setting process would be faster due to high clay content of
change in width was noted down [27]. Subsequently, the sample aggregate. This would ultimately result in lower mixing time for
was again placed in LWT machine and a mold was placed over it. mixes produced with Filler A.
Standard sand (0.6 mm to 0.15 mm) at 82.2 °C was poured onto Further, mineralogical composition of the fillers was investi-
the sample and a load of 56.7 kg was applied for another 100 gated using X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (XRF). XRF results
cycles. The difference in weight was termed as the sand adhered (Table 4) demonstrating major oxides showed that the SiO2 con-
on the sample [28]. tent of the Filler A was substantially higher than Filler B. Since,
there is a presence of negative charge on aggregate surface with
high silica content, addition of cationic asphalt emulsion to aggre-
5. Results and discussions
gates with Filler A would result in rapid breaking of the mix.
After examining the physical properties and mineralogical com-
5.1. Trial formulation
position, mix time test was conducted on the mixes produced with
these fillers. It was observed that the mix time increased to 160 s
Initially, mix time test was conducted on the trial formulation,
even with emulsion and water content of 14% and 7% respectively
i.e., the ratio of dry aggregate: water: emulsion: cement was
(Fig. 3) by replacing the filler. This indicates that filler plays a major
100:5:14:1. Subsequently, the water content was increased to
role in the breaking process of microsurfacing mix. Therefore, for
achieve a mixing time of a minimum of 120 s. It was observed that
subsequent testing, filler with lower MBV (Filler B) was included
even with a water content of 20%, rapid breaking was observed due
in the gradation as a replacement to the filler initially adopted in
to which the mix could not be produced. The rapid breaking could
the study (Filler A).
be attributed to one or a combination of reasons listed below:

a) Emulsifier chemistry 5.3. Effect of mineral filler

b) Insufficient emulsifier dosage
c) pH of soap solution Generally, cement is used in microsurfacing as a mineral filler.
d) Filler-emulsion compatibility However, in this study, in order to enhance sustainability, fly ash
was also incorporated along with cement. The mineralogical com-
For this study, modifications in emulsifier dosage and filler were position of both cement (ordinary Portland cement, OPC) and fly
investigated. ash are presented in Table 4. In order to assess the effect of mineral
filler in the microsurfacing mix, 30-min and 60-min cohesion were
5.2. Importance of filler characteristics evaluated. The formulations considered are presented in Table 5.
Results of the cohesion test along with specification limits [5]
In microsurfacing mix, fillers contribute significantly in the are illustrated in Fig. 4. It could be observed that all the mixes
breaking and curing process due to its large surface area. So, in passed the specification limit for 30-min cohesion. On the other
order to mitigate problem associated with premature breaking, hand, mixes without cement, i.e., Mix 1 and Mix 7, did not meet
the old filler (Filler A) was replaced with a new filler (Filler B). the 60-min cohesion requirement. Therefore, it could be said that
The physical properties (Table 3) and mineralogical composition the role of cement in strength development of microsurfacing
(Table 4) of both the fillers were assessed to understand the influ- mix is critical.
ence of filler characteristics on breaking process. Statistical analysis of the observed means was conducted using
It could be seen from Table 3 that the MBV of Filler A was>15 Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparison using SPSS software. The sig-
whereas Filler B had MBV of 2.55 and relatively lower pH value. nificance level was 5% and the mixes were grouped according to
4
N. Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah and T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

Table 4 (E1), 2.0% (E2) and 2.5%, (E3) considered for the study. Results in
Mineralogical composition of filler. Table 2 for emulsion E1, E2 and E3 showed that all the physical
Oxides Filler A Filler B Cement Fly ash properties were satisfying the specification limits laid down by
CaO 6.1 39.4 63.6 1.2 ISSA [5]. In addition, variation in properties of both emulsion and
SiO2 44.6 9.3 19.5 59.4 emulsion residues were minimal. Therefore, it could be said that,
Fe2O3 19.0 1.6 3.9 3.6 the physical properties of emulsion do not vary substantially
Al2O3 14.5 2.7 3.1 28.1 within the recommended range (as per manufacturer’s recommen-
MgO 5.2 10.9 2.9 0.6
dation) of emulsifier dosage.
After testing the emulsion properties, performance of microsur-
facing mix was assessed in terms of cohesion, raveling (abrasion
200 loss) and rutting (lateral displacement). The results presented in
Fig. 5 show that, in general, performance degrades with the
160 increase in emulsifier dosage. The cohesion at 1.5% emulsifier
Mix time, sec

dosage was 34% to 43% greater than cohesion at higher emulsifier

120 120 sec
dosage. The susceptibility of mix to raveling and rutting also
increased with the increase in the emulsifier dosage. With respect
80
to 1.5% emulsifier dosage, abrasion loss increased by 21% and 58%
40 whereas lateral displacement increased by 13% and 14% for mixes
produced with emulsion having 2% and 2.5% emulsifier dosage
0 respectively.
5 10 15 20 5 7 Statistical analysis of test results presented in Table 7 showed
that the cohesion at 1.5% emulsifier dosage was statistically signif-
Filler A Filler B
icant from the higher emulsifier dosages. Test results further estab-
Water content, % lishes the fact that the presence of higher emulsifier dosage
hinders the curing process and delays the strength development.
Fig. 3. Variation of mix time with water content and filler type. In terms of performance, abrasion loss at 2.5% emulsifier dosage
was significantly higher than the lower emulsifier dosages whereas
variation in emulsifier dosage did not had significant influence on
their test results. Here, group number 1 represented the best per-
rutting resistance. Significantly higher raveling could be due to the
forming mix and subsequent numbering denoted relatively inferior
delay in the curing process and lower adhesion at the aggregate-
performance. The groups were assigned such that the difference
binder interface caused by the presence of excessive emulsifier in
between the means of the observations in a group was statistically
the emulsion. Ronald and Luis [12] stated that when the emulsifier
significant than the observed means of other groups. In addition,
dosage is very high, the aggregate surface is covered by a bilayer of
the numbering 1/2 implied that the mean of the observations
the excess emulsifier. This results in the aggregate surface to be
was not statistically different from the observed means of group
hydrophilic rather than hydrophobic. Due to the hydrophilic nat-
1 and 2. The analysis presented in Table 6 showed that the mixes
ure, asphalt particles are unable to spread over the aggregate sur-
with cement, i.e., Mix 2 to Mix 6, had significantly higher cohesion
face and the adhesion at the aggregate-binder interface becomes
(both 30-min and 60-min) than mixes without cement (Mix 1 and
substantially low.
7). This shows that cement aids in the curing process and the
hydration products formed due to reaction of cement with water
imparts stiffness to the mix.
Interestingly, even though the difference among Mix 2 to Mix 6 5.5. Influence of asphalt type and solvent
was insignificant, mixes with both cement (2%) and fly ash (1%) as
mineral filler had the highest cohesion. The mechanism behind It can be noticed from Fig. 5, that even though limits of cohesion
increase in the cohesion was divided into two phases. Firstly, the and raveling were satisfied with 1.5% emulsifier dosage, the rutting
hydration of cement forms calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) and was still more than the acceptable limit (>5%). In order to rectify
calcium hydroxide (CaOH). Secondly, the CaOH reacts with the sil- issues related to rutting, the stiffness of the emulsion residue had
ica present in the fly ash to again produce C-S-H. This reaction to be increased. For this purpose, laboratory investigations were
leads to the higher production of the cementitious product (C-S- conducted on emulsion prepared with harder asphalt grade (VG-
H) and the adhesion at the aggregate-binder interface improves 30), i.e., emulsion E4. Preparation of emulsion using colloid mill
[29]. is difficult with VG-30 because of its higher viscosity. Baumgardner
[30] recommended that the outlet temperature of emulsion, calcu-
lated using Equation (1), should be less than 95 °C. Also, during
5.4. Variation in emulsifier dosage production of emulsion, the equiviscous temperature should be
maintained, i.e., viscosity of asphalt should be same (200 cP) irre-
Initially, emulsifier dosage was varied between 1.5% and 2.5% by spective of asphalt type. Equiviscous temperature is maintained to
weight of the emulsion. The physical properties were investigated ensure desirable particle size distribution of asphalt particles in the
for the emulsion prepared with three emulsifier dosages, i.e., 1.5% emulsion. From Equation (1), it was found that the maximum

Table 5
Mineral filler combinations.

Filler type % by weight of dry aggregate weight

Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4 Mix 5 Mix 6 Mix 7
Stone-dust 10 9 8 7 7 7 7
Fly ash 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
Cement 0 1 2 3 2 1 0

5
N. Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah and T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

35 Limits allowable temperature considering 95 °C as emulsion exit temper-

30-min - 12 kg-cm ature was 145 °C.
30
60-min - 20 kg-cm
25
Coheison, kg-cm

½ðACwt%  ACtemp  0:5Þ þ ðSoapwt%  Soaptemp  1Þ

Emulsionexittemp ¼
20 ½ðACwt%  0:5Þ þ ðSoapwt%  1Þ
ð1Þ
15

10 Since harder binder grade was used for production of emulsion,

it was found that the storage stability of emulsion exceeded the
5 specification limit of 1% (refer Table 2). The higher storage stability,
0 i.e., faster rate of coalescence was primarily attributed to the high
30-min 60-min viscosity of asphalt during production of emulsion. Higher viscos-
Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4 Mix 5 Mix 6 Mix 7 ity of asphalt leads to larger particle size of asphalt which ulti-
mately results in performance of the mix. In this regard,
Fig. 4. Influence of mineral filler on cohesion of microsurfacing.
reduction of viscosity of asphalt by addition of solvent ensured that
the particle size distribution is maintained even with the use of
stiffer binder. For this purpose, kerosene was used as the solvent
in emulsion E5. The solvent was added in asphalt just before pour-
Table 6
Grouping of mixes according to mineral filler.
ing it in colloid mill at the rate of 1% by weight of asphalt. The ker-
osene content was selected such that the viscosity of asphalt at
Mix type Cohesion, kg-cm
145 °C was 200 cP. It is also important to note that latex could
30 min 60 min
not be added to soap solution when VG-30 was used as binder
Mix 1 2 2 because of choking problem found during production of emulsion.
Mix 2 1 1
Mix 3 1 1
So, post-addition of latex was done in the emulsion at the rate of
Mix 4 1 1 3.5% by weight of emulsion.
Mix 5 1 1 Before assessing the mix properties, the variation in emulsion
Mix 6 1 1 properties was determined. It could be observed from Table 2 that
Mix 7 2 2
the emulsion properties did not change substantially with asphalt
type (E1 and E4). It is important to note that the variation in Say-
bolt Furol viscosity could be due to the higher asphalt residue in
emulsion with VG-30 binder. However, difference in properties of
emulsion residue of E1 and E4 was noticed with different asphalt
35 types. Here, higher softening point and lower penetration values
Limits proved the hypothesis that the stiffness of emulsion residue was
30 30-min - 12 kg-cm
60-min - 20 kg-cm increased by replacing softer grade binder with harder grade bin-
Cohesion, kg-cm

der for emulsion production.

25
Results illustrated in Fig. 6 showed that the variation in cohe-
30-min sion was minimal with difference in both asphalt type and solvent.
20
60-min In terms of raveling, expressed in terms of abrasion loss (A.L.),
15 mixes produced with emulsion having VG-10 and VG-30 (with sol-
vent) as binder had relatively lower abrasion loss than VG-30
10 (without solvent) as binder. In addition, the replacement of softer
E1 E2 E3
binder grade with harder binder grade (VG-30) reduced the rutting
Emulsion type
resistance, described in terms of lateral displacement (L.D.), by
(a)
800 14 Limits 36%. The lateral displacement was further reduced by another
AL - 538 g/m2 39% with the addition of solvent.
Lateral Displacement, %

12
700 LD - 5%
Abrasion Loss, g/m2

Statistical analysis of test results presented in Table 8 showed

10
600
the cohesion did not vary significantly with asphalt type and sol-
8
vent. Insignificant variation in cohesion indicated that the stiffness
6 A.L.
500 imparted by the hydration of cement and additional cementitious
4 L.D. products formed with fly ash (refer Section 4.3) were the predom-
400
2 inant factors influencing cohesion. On the other hand, raveling was
300 0 significantly influenced with the use of solvent whereas the
E1 E2 E3 asphalt binder grade and the use of solvent significantly impacted
Emulsion type the rutting resistance. This highlights the importance of selection
(b) of proper binder grade of asphalt and maintaining equiviscous
temperature during emulsion production. Here, higher viscosity
Fig. 5. Influence of emulsifier dosage on (a) cohesion and (b) raveling and rutting. of asphalt during emulsion production could result in larger parti-

Table 7
Grouping of mixes according to emulsifier dosage.

Mix type Cohesion, kg-cm Abrasion Loss Lateral Displacement

30-min 60-min
E1 1 1 1 1
E2 2 2 1 1
E3 2 2 2 1

6
N. Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah and T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

35 For this purpose, the acceptable limits of each design parameter

Limits (min.)
30-min - 12kg-cm were obtained by fitting a second-degree polynomial to the test
30 60-min - 20 kg-cm results and the range of emulsion content with satisfactory results
Cohesion, kg-cm

25 were termed as acceptable range. Results illustrated in Fig. 8

30-min showed that the mix passed the specification limits (inset in
20
60-min Fig. 6) for cohesion and abrasion loss (1-hr soaked specimens) for
all emulsion contents. However, for lateral displacement and sand
15
adhesion, there exists an acceptable range of emulsion content in
10 which the mixes passed the specified limits as per ISSA [5].
E1 E4 E5 After determining the acceptable range from graph, a narrow
Emulsion type
range diagram was plotted, as shown in Fig. 9. The acceptable
(a)
range was determined by drawing a vertical line through the min-
600 12
Limits (max.) imum and maximum acceptable emulsion content considering all
AL - 538 g/m2

Lateral displacement, %
10 the design parameters. For the materials used and performance
450 LD - 5%
Abrasion loss, g/m2

8 tests conducted in the study, acceptable range of emulsion content

varied from 12.6% to 15.2%. So, OEC of 14% was selected for the
300 6 A.L. materials investigated in this study.
4 L.D. Finally, for the design formulation (Table 9), all the parameters
150
2 were determined by conducting laboratory investigations. Apart
from the tests mentioned in Section 4, Schulze Breuer and Ruck
0 0
test was conducted as per ISSA protocols to determine the classifi-
E1 E4 E5
Emulsion type cation compatibility of the microsurfacing mix. Grading of the mix
(b) was assigned based on abrasion loss, integrity and adhesion
respectively. In this test, mix having equivalent of 8.125% asphalt
Fig. 6. Influence of asphalt type and solvent on (a) cohesion and (b) raveling and residue is prepared, air cured for 1 h and oven cured at 60 °C for
rutting.
18 h. Immediately after curing, 40 g mix is poured into preheated
mold and pressure of 1000 kg is applied for 1 min. The specimen is
extracted and allowed to cool at room temperature. Then, the spec-
cle size distribution of asphalt which deteriorates the performance
imens are placed in water bath at 25 °C for 6 days and the water
of the mix.
absorption is noted down. Then, the saturated specimens are
placed in a shuttle cylinder filled with 750 ml water and placed
5.6. Mix design in abrasion machine. The specimen is then subjected to 3600 cycles
of rotation at 20 rpm. The loss in weight is noted down as abrasion
After addressing the related issues and finalizing the production loss. The abraded specimen is then boiled for 30 min in an 800 ml
variables, mix design was conducted as per ISSA guidelines [5]. glass beaker and the weight of the largest remaining piece is noted
However, in this study, instead of determining optimum emulsion down and integrity is calculated. Finally, the specimen is dried at
content (OEC) using abrasion loss and sand adhered, a narrow room temperature and % stripping is visually determined. The
range diagram was plotted to represent the acceptable range of properties at the design formulation are described in Table 10. As
emulsion content. It was done to ensure that within the acceptable evident from Table 10, all the specification requirements of ISSA
emulsion content range, all the design parameters should satisfy [5] were satisfied at OEC. Hence, the mix design was completed.
the specification limits laid down by ISSA [5]. In conventional prac-
tice [5], the emulsion content 1.5% less than the maximum accept- 6. Conclusion
able emulsion content from sand adhesion test is termed as OEC.
For instance, in this study, the OEC would be 13.6% (=15.1%  Microsurfacing mix design is a rigorous and complicated pro-
1.5%) and the acceptable emulsion content range would be 12.5% cess due to the presence of multiple components associated with
to 15.1% (abrasion loss at 12.5% = 538 g/m2), as shown in Fig. 7. the production process. In this study, a systematic procedure was
The acceptable range, considering abrasion loss and sand adhered, adopted to mitigate the common problems encountered during
was 12.5%  15.1%. But, if we consider the lateral displacement at mix design. Analysis and interpretation of test results highlight
12.5%, it had exceeded the specification limit and would result in the following findings.
the mix susceptible to rutting. On the other hand, if the narrow
range diagram is considered, all the parameters including cohesion 1. Problem of rapid breaking of microsurfacing mix can be miti-
(30-min and 60-min), abrasion loss (1-hr and 6 days), lateral dis- gated by selecting the aggregates with low clay content, mea-
placement and sand adhesion would be taken into account. This sured using Methylene Blue Value test. In addition, the use of
would lead to a more reliable mix within the acceptable range filler with low silica content could also solve the issue of high
and the durability would be improved. reactivity of aggregates.

Table 8
Grouping of mixes according to asphalt type and solvent.

Mix type Cohesion, kg-cm Abrasion Loss Lateral Displacement

30-min 60-min
E1 1 1 1/2 3
E4 1 1 2 2
E5 1 1 1 1

7
N. Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah and T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

800 800 2. The cohesion of mixes with cement was significantly higher
700 700 than mixes without cement at minimum emulsifier dosage of
Acceptable range 1.5%. However, asphalt type and solvent had insignificant effect
Abrasion Loss, g/m2

600 (12.5% - 15.1%) 600

Sand adhered, g/m2

538 g/m2 on cohesion. Interestingly, combination of cement and fly ash
500 500 exhibited highest cohesion pointing out towards the benefits
400 400 of alternative materials for sustainable development.
300 300
3. The increase in emulsifier dosage up to 2.5% imparted stability
to emulsion and increased the mix time. However, the resis-
200 200 tance to raveling, rutting and cohesion development was nega-
100 100 tively affected by increase in emulsifier dosage beyond 1.5%.
0 0 4. The raveling resistance of microsurfacing mix improved by 23%
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 with use of 1% solvent in the emulsion production with harder
Emulsion content, % grade asphalt. Similarly, rutting resistance improved by 36%
Abrasion Loss Sand adhered with the use of harder grade asphalt and it further improved
by another 39% with the addition of 1% solvent with harder
Fig. 7. Acceptable range for emulsion content as per ISSA. grade asphalt.

35 35
Cohesion (30-min), kg-cm

30 30

Cohesion (60-min), kg-cm

25 25
20 kg-cm
20 20

15 15
12 kg-cm
10 10
12 14 16 18 12 14 16 18
Emulsion content, % Emulsion content, %
600 900 807 g/m2
538 g/m2
Abrasion Loss (6-day), g/m2
Abrasion Loss (1-hr), g/m2

750
450
600

300 450

300
150
150

0 0
12 14 16 18 12 14 16 18
Emulsion content, % Emulsion content, %
7 900
6 750
Lateral Displacement, %

Sand adhered, g/m2

5%
5
600 538 g/m2
4
450
3
2 300

1 150
0 0
12 14 16 18 12 14 16 18
Emulsion content, % Emulsion content, %
Fig. 8. Design parameters for microsurfacing mix design.

8
N. Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah and T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

12.6% 15.2%

Cohesion ISSA
Limits

30-min

60-min

1-hr
WTAT

6-day
Lateral
LWT

Displacement
Sand
Adhered
12.5 14.0 15.5 17.0
Emulsion content, %
Unacceptable Acceptable
Fig. 9. Narrow range diagram for microsurfacing mix design.

Table 9 6.1. Application

Design formulation.

Component Quantity Allocation of component quantity The comprehensive discussion presented in the paper would
Emulsion
help the paving agency to systematically address project-specific
Asphalt (VG-30) 62% by weight of emulsion issues faced during mix design. In addition, implementation of nar-
Asphalt additive 0.5% by weight of asphalt row range diagram would give an idea to the practitioners about
Solvent (Kerosene) 1% by weight of asphalt the consequences of deviation from design formulation.
Emulsifier 1.5% by weight of emulsion
pH of soap solution 2 by addition of HCl
Latex (post-addition) 3.5% by weight of emulsion
Mix
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Emulsion Content 14% by weight of dry aggregate
Water Content 6.4% by weight of dry aggregate Nishant Bhargava: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investi-
gation, Methodology, Writing - original draft. Anjan Kumar Sidda-
gangaiah: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing -
Table 10 review & editing. Teiborlang Lyngdoh Ryntathiang: Supervision,
Verification of Properties at design formulation. Writing - review & editing.
Test Results Specification
Cohesion Declaration of Competing Interest
30 min (Set) 23.7 kg-cm 12 kg-cm min.
60 min (Traffic) 28.7 kg-cm 20 kg-cm min.
Wet Track Abrasion Loss The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
1-hr soaked 380 g/m2 538 g/m2 max cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
6-day soaked 405 g/m2 807 g/m2 max to influence the work reported in this paper.
Loaded Wheel Test
Lateral Displacement 3.5% 5% max
Sand adhered 376 g/m2 538 g/m2 max. Acknowledgements
Classification compatibility 12 grade pts. 11 grade pts. Min

The authors acknowledge the funding support provided by

Department of Science and Technology (DST) government of India.
The authors are grateful to Om Infracon Pvt. Ltd. for funding the
5. Narrow range diagram presents a better framework to identify laboratory colloid mill and Hincol Pvt. Ltd. for providing the mate-
the acceptable emulsion content range considering all the rial support required for the study. Also, the authors highly appre-
design parameters. ciate the laboratory support provided by IRMS Lab, IIT Kanpur, for
sample testing using XRF.
Hence, it could be concluded that the filler characteristics and
mineral filler content play a major role aggregate-emulsion com-
patibility and strength development respectively. In addition, the References
performance of the microsurfacing mix is significantly dependent
[1] M.S. Mamlouk, J.P. Zaniewski, Pavement preventive maintenance: Description,
on the emulsion components including emulsifier dosage, asphalt effectiveness, and treatments, Flexible Pavement Rehabilitation and
type and solvent. So, each component needs to be critically ana- Maintenance, ASTM STP 1348 (1998) 121–135.
lyzed during mix design to maximize the durability of microsurfac- [2] S.L. Tighe, D.D. Gransberg, Sustainable Pavement Maintenance Practices.
NCHRP Research Results Digest 365, Transportation Research Board,
ing mix. Washington, DC, 2012.

9
N. Bhargava, Anjan Kumar Siddagangaiah and T. Lyngdoh Ryntathiang Construction and Building Materials 270 (2021) 121759

[3] S S. Harbi, M. Margni, Y. Loerincik, J. Dettling. Life cycle management as a way [17] IRC SP: 81. Tentative Specifications for Slurry Seal and Microsurfacing. Indian
to operationalize sustainability within organizations. In Life cycle Roads Congress, New Delhi, India, 2008.
management, Dordrecht, Springer (2015) 23-33 [18] K. Takamura, A. James, Paving with asphalt emulsions, Advances in asphalt
[4] J. Santos, G. Flintsch, A. Ferreira, Environmental and economic assessment of materials (2015) 393–426.
pavement construction and management practices for enhancing pavement [19] X. Fang, A. Garcia-Hernandez, P. Lura, Overview on cold cement bitumen
sustainability, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 116 (2017) 15–31. emulsion asphalt”, RILEM Technical Letters 1 (2016) 116–121.
[5] ISSA, A143. Recommended Performance Guideline for Micro Surfacing, [20] S. Du, Interaction mechanism of cement and asphalt emulsion in asphalt
International Slurry Surfacing Association (2010). emulsion mixtures, Mater. Struct. 47 (2014) 1149–1159.
[6] A. James, Overview of asphalt emulsion, Asphalt emulsion technology (2006). [21] A. Nikolaides, N. Oikonomou, The use of fly ash as a substitute of cement in
[7] MS-19. A Basic Asphalt Emulsion Manual. Asphalt Institute Manual Series No. microsurfacing, Waste Materials in Construction 1 (2000) 234–240.
19, Third Edition, Ibadan, Nigeria, 1997. [22] N. Patel, R. Gujar, Evaluation of Performance of High Calcium Fly Ash as a
[8] R.G. Hicks, K. Dunn, J. Moulthrop, Framework for selecting effective preventive Mineral Filler in Mix Design of Microsurfacing of Road Pavement, Civil
maintenance treatments for flexible pavements, Transportation Research Engineering and Urban Planning: An International Journal (CiVEJ) 4 (2017) 49–
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1597 (1997) 1–10. 58.
[9] D.D. Gransberg, NCHRP Synthesis 411: Microsurfacing; a synthesis of highway [23] ISSA TB No. 113. Test method for Determining Mix Time for Slurry Surfacing
practices, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Systems. International Slurry Surfacing Association, 2017.
Washington, DC, 2010. [24] ISSA TB No. 106. Test Method for Measurement of Slurry Seal Consistency.
[10] R. E. Smith, C. K. Beatty, J. W. Button, S. E. Stacy. E. M. Andrews. Use of Micro- International Slurry Surfacing Association, 2015.
Surfacing in Highway Pavements. FINAL REPORT (No. FHWA/TX-95/1289-2F), [25] I.S.S.A. Tb, Test Method to Determine Set and Cure Development of Slurry
FHWA 1994. Surfacing Systems by Cohesion Tester, International Slurry Surfacing
[11] Caltrans. Chapter 9 - Micro-Surfacing. In MTAG Volume I Flexible Pavement Association No. 139 (2017).
Preservation 2nd Edition, Caltrans Division of Maintenance, 2009. [26] ISSA TB No. 100, Laboratory Test Method for Wet Track Abrasion of Slurry
[12] M. Ronald, F.P. Luis, Asphalt emulsions formulation: State-of-the-art and Surfacing Systems. International Slurry Surfacing Association, 2017
dependency of formulation on emulsions properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 123 [27] I.S.S.A. Tb, Test Method for Measurement of Stability and Resistance to
(2016) 162–173. Compaction, Vertical and Lateral Displacement of Multilayered Fine Aggregate
[13] R.N. Hunter, A. Self, The Shell Bitumen Handbook, Sixth Edition., Shell Cold Mixes, International Slurry Surfacing Association No. 147 (2005).
Bitumen, UK, 2015. [28] I.S.S.A. Tb, Test Method for Measurement of Excess Asphalt In Bituminous
[14] B. Baughman Emulsion Manufacturing & Latex Injection In 31st Annual Slurry Mixtures by Use of a Loaded Wheel Tester and Sand Adhesion, International
Systems Workshop 2016 Las Vegas, Nevada Slurry Surfacing Association No. 109 (2005).
[15] H. Raza. State-of-the-practice Design, Construction, and Performance of Micro- [29] American Coal Ash Association. Fly ash facts for highway engineers. Report No.
Surfacing - Final Report. No. FHWA-SA-94-051. FHWA, 1994 FHWA-IF-03-019, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
[16] D.N. Little, J.C. Petersen, Unique effects of hydrated lime filler on the Administration, 2003.
performance-related properties of asphalt cements: physical and chemical [30] G.L. Baumgardner, Asphalt emulsion manufacturing today and tomorrow,
interactions revisited, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 17 (2005) 207–218. Asphalt Emulsion Technology, Transportation Research Circular E-C102 (2006)
15–26.

10