## 3 Results
### Microsurfacing Test Results
#### 3.3.3 Cohesion Test Results
Regarding the microsurfacing mixtures produced with Emulsion 2, the first composition studied was also based on the final mix design obtained in the consistency test, i.e., 52% fine aggregates and 48% coarse aggregates, 12% emulsion, 2.5% cement, and 9% water. However, the mixture with this configuration did not achieve the target cohesion values mentioned by the ISSA after 30 and 60 min of curing. Thus, new compositions were also designed to improve the cohesion results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Mixture**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Design of the Microsurfacing Mixture**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Cohesion (kgf cm)**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Water (\%)** & **Cement (\%)** & **Emulsion (\%)** & **After 30 min** & **After 60 min** \\ \hline
1 & 11\% & 2.5\% & 12\% & 16.40 & 19.06 \\
2 & 11\% & 2.5\% & 13\% & 17.12 & 21.11 \\
3 & 11\% & 2.0\% & 12\% & 17.70 & 19.89 \\
4 & 11\% & 2.0\% & 13\% & 17.36 & 20.74 \\
5 & 11\% & 2.0\% & 14\% &The second mixture was only increased in the emulsion content by 1%, but that change had little effect on the microsurfacing cohesion values, which were still typical of a slow-set and slow-traffic system. Therefore, a third mixture was produced with 13% emulsion and 3% cement, improving the cohesion results and turning it into a quick-set system, confirming that the active filler (cement) is vital in the mixture cohesion. However, this solution could not be considered a quick-traffic system due to insufficient cohesion after 60 min of curing. Thus, a new composition was assessed by increasing the water content by 1%, which slightly lowered the cohesion value after 30 min but increased the cohesion value after 60 min (although not reaching a quick-traffic class). Intending to look for a better combination of the amounts of emulsion, added water, and cement to improve cohesion, new mix designs were defined that varied the amount of added water and emulsion but kept the amount of cement at 3%. Table 3 summarizes all the results obtained for Emulsion 2. Figure 12: Variation of cohesion values according to the material added to the mixture produced with Emulsion 1. Figure 13: Samples’ final appearance after the cohesion test for the selected mixture produced with Emulsion 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Mixture**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Design of the Microsurfacing Mixture**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cohesion (kgf cm)**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Water (\%)** & **Cement (\%)** & **Emulsion (\%)** & **After 30 min** & **After 60 min** \\ \hline
1 & 9 & 2.5 & 12 & 8.09 & 11.34 \\
2 & 9 & 2.5 & 13 & 8.74 & 13.99 \\
3 & 9 & 3.0 & 13 & 13.49 & 16.04 \\
4 & 10 & 3.0 & 13 & 12.68 & 16.71 \\
5 & 11 & 3.0 & 13 & 10.62 & 13.63 \\
6 & 10 & 3.0 & 14 & 10.35 & 14.88 \\
7 & 10 & 3.0 & 12 & 10.02 & 13.50 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mixture compositions produced with Emulsion 2 for the cohesion test. After fixing the amount of cement at 3%, the results of mixtures 3 to 7 showed the mutual influence of the emulsion and added water contents on the cohesion of these microsurfacing mixtures. After 30 and 60 min, the best cohesion values were obtained for 10% water and 13% emulsion. Increasing the water or emulsion contents reduced the 30-min curing time cohesion values by increasing the amount of water needing evaporation. Reducing the emulsion content also had a negative effect due to a reduction in the amount of residual binder available in the microsurfacing mixture. Figure 14 shows the variation of cohesion values according to the amount of material added to the mixture produced with Emulsion 2. As can be observed, the composition showing the best cohesion values was that with 10% water, 3% cement, and 13% emulsion, which, according to ISSA, can be classified as a quick-set and slow-traffic system. Figure 15 presents the samples' final appearance after the cohesion test for the selected mixture produced with Emulsion 2.