Alternative Testing Protocol to Assess the Bonding and Shear Resistance of Pavement Bituminous Crack-Sealant Material

  • Sharvin Poovaneshvaran
  • Mohd Rosli Mohd HasanEmail author
  • Ashiru Sani
  • Raa Khimi Shuib
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 53)


Conventional asphalt binder is widely used as the crack sealing material. Crack sealing is one of the most frequent pavement maintenance methods. The level of performance during service life has a close relationship with the properties of asphalt binder used in the pavement or as crack sealant material. As for the pavement crack mechanism, there are two different working mechanisms that occur within the pavement crack, which is horizontal and vertical movement. Horizontal movements are caused by shrinkage and expansion of pavement due to the thermal changes in pavement material. While, the moisture related changes causes vertical movement. This study aims to introduce an alternative testing protocol that can simulate the real failure mechanism of pavement crack. This is due to limited approaches that had been taken by previous researchers to evaluate the performance of pavement-crack sealant. The tensile strength and resistance to shear stress had been chosen as the main performance evaluations in pavement crack sealant material. Prior to that, the bond test and Layer Parallel Direct Shear Test had been used to evaluate the tensile strength and shear resistance of crack sealant material, respectively. This testing protocols could be adopted by other researchers for further studies and also by the asphalt industry.


Bitumen Latex Crumb rubber Pavement crack Shear resistance Tensile strength 



The authors of this paper would like to thank Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) Division of Research & Innovation for the Short-Term Research Grant Scheme (304/PAWAM/60313048) to conduct this study. Acknowledgements are also due to all material suppliers for their kind cooperation that enable this study to be conducted. Many thanks are also due to the technicians of the Highway Engineering Laboratory at Universiti Sains Malaysia for their continuous assistance. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USM.


  1. 1.
    Ayazi MJ, Moniri A, Barghabany P (2017) Moisture susceptibility of warm mixed-reclaimed asphalt pavement containing sasobit and zycotherm additives. Pet Sci Technol 35:890–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    California Department of Transportation (2008) Maintenance technical advisory guide (Mtag), vol I, 2nd edn. Flexible Pavement PreservationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Çelik ON, Atiş CD (2008) Compactibility of hot bituminous mixtures made with crumb rubber-modified binders. Constr Build Mater 22:1143–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cong L, Peng J, Guo Z, Wang Q (2017) Evaluation of fatigue cracking in asphalt mixtures based on surface energy. J Mater Civ Eng 29:D4015003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Federal Highway Administration (2008) Pavement preservation treatment construction guideGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harmelink D, Aschenbrener T (2003) Extent of top-down cracking in ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kök BV, Çolak H (2011) Laboratory comparison of the crumb-rubber and SBS modified bitumen and hot mix asphalt. Constr Build Mater 25:3204–3212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee S-J, Akisetty CK, Amirkhanian SN (2008) The effect of crumb rubber modifier (CRM) on the performance properties of rubberized binders in HMA pavements. Constr Build Mater 22:1368–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu S, Cao W, Fang J, Shang S (2009) Variance analysis and performance evaluation of different crumb rubber modified (CRM) asphalt. Constr Build Mater 23:2701–2708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malaysian Public Work Department (2008) Standard specifications for road work. JKR/SPJ/2008-Section 4:Flexible Pavement. Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Navarro FJ, Partal P, Martı́nez-Boza F, Valencia C, Gallegos C (2002) Rheological characteristics of ground tire rubber-modified bitumens. Chem Eng J 89:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norouzi A, Kim D, Richard Kim Y (2016) Numerical evaluation of pavement design parameters for the fatigue cracking and rutting performance of asphalt pavements. Mater Struct 49:3619–3634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sani A, Mohd Hasan MR, Shariff KA, Jamshidi A, Ibrahim AH, Poovaneshvaran S (2019) Engineering and microscopic characteristics of natural rubber latex modified binders incorporating silane additive. Int J Pavement Eng, 1–10Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith KL, Romine AR (2001) Materials and procedures for sealing and filling cracks in asphalt-surfaced pavements—manual of practice. Eres Consultants Incorporated, Federal Highway AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swamy AK, Daniel JS, Harvey J, Popescu L, Wu R (2016) Effect of mixture properties on fatigue failure mechanism in asphalt concreteGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tremblay J, Sanborn D (2014) Assessment of ASTM D 6690-12 type II and type IV joint sealers. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Federal Highway AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu S, Wen H, Zhang W, Shen S, Mohammad LN, Faheem A, Muhunthan B (2019) Field performance of top-down fatigue cracking for warm mix asphalt pavements. Int J Pavement Eng 20:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang J, Simate GS, Lee SI, Hu S, Walubita LF (2016) Relating asphalt binder elastic recovery properties to HMA crack modeling and fatigue life prediction. Constr Build Mater 111:644–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharvin Poovaneshvaran
    • 1
  • Mohd Rosli Mohd Hasan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ashiru Sani
    • 1
    • 3
  • Raa Khimi Shuib
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Sains MalaysiaNibong Tebal, PenangMalaysia
  2. 2.Visiting Professor, School of Highway, Chang’an UniversitySouth Erhuan Middle SectionXi’anChina
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringKano University of Science and TechnologyKanoNigeria
  4. 4.School of Materials and Mineral Resources EngineeringUniversiti Sains MalaysiaNibong Tebal, PenangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations