No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In this article, the effect of emulsion type and additive on the performance of microsurfacing mix is evaluated both for initial mix characteristics and long-term performance. Three mix formulations were used for microsurfacing performance assessment, including cationic slow set (CSS) 1-h, cationic quick set (CQS) 1-h Mix 1 with additive, and CQS 1-h Mix 2 without additive. Here, the additive used primarily imparts rapid setting and acts as an adhesion promoter. Also, for each formulation, microsurfacing performance was assessed at 4 emulsion contents. The initial properties were evaluated in terms of workability, set and cure time of the mix, and filler–emulsion compatibility. On the other hand, long-term performance of the mix was assessed in terms of resistance to raveling and rutting. It was found that the emulsion type had a major effect on cohesion development where the mix with CSS 1-h emulsion had relatively lower cohesion than CQS 1-h Mix 1. The abrasion loss and sand adhesion were also affected by emulsion type, which could probably be attributed to better compatibility of CQS 1-h emulsion with the aggregates used in this study. It was also interesting to note that although the performance of CQS 1-h Mix 1 was acceptable, the addition of additive resulted in substantial improvement of both workability and performance. The filler–emulsion compatibility increased from 4 to 12 points with the use of additive. The abrasion loss was reduced by 262 to 663 % depending on the emulsion content. Statistical analysis at the 5 % significance level also showed that both emulsion type and additive had a significant influence on microsurfacing performance in terms of mixing time, consistency, cohesion, raveling, and rutting resistance. However, the resistance to moisture damage provided by additive resulted in insignificant differences between CSS 1-h and CQS 1-h Mix 1.

No abstract