Decay Characteristics of Mechanical Properties of Asphalt Mixtures under Sizeable Wet Temperature Cycle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some significant corrections are required. The detailed comments are as follows:

1. Abstract

The abstract needs to be clearer to understand. There were many too-extensive sentences spliced. It is recommended to rewrite this section comprising these topics: a brief introduction, main research objective, short methodology, main findings, and conclusions. Also, it is required the following corrections:

Line 8: “of the wet” instead “the of wet”

Line 9: “during the pavement life spam” instead “during the process of use”

Lines 10-11: “in the southern region where there are many rainstorms and sudden temperature drops in summer”: Which local? Where? It is necessary to provide complete information for the readers.

Lines 9-16; 19-26; 26-34: Split these paragraphs using short phrases.

2. Introduction

It is required that all text be revised because it took time to understand in the research context due to the extensive sentences. Please try to use short phrases.

Lines 39-46: The thermic amplitude at which the asphalt mixtures are submitted in the field contributes to cracking failure. On the other hand, this phenomenon can be minimized depending on the asphalt type used in the mixture production. The authors have to include this approach in the discussion.

Lines 47-53: The stormwater infiltration through the pavement surface cracks results in damage. Please clarify the text concerning asphalt mixture damage due to the water and the pavement damage (structure) due to pavement inferior layers’ resistance decrease (rigidity) caused by the water infiltration. The pavement distresses are different, means, in the asphalt mixture surface layer and in the others layers.

Based on the consulted literature review, the authors must include the previous findings related to the factors influencing moisture damage (asphalt type, aggregates characteristics, air voids, climates, traffic, etc). Also, the existing methods for evaluation and the findings, such as ASTM D 3625, AASHTO T 182, AASHTO T 283, AASHTO T 165, Hamburg wheel-tracking device, etc.

What measures can be taken to prevent or minimize moisture damage? The literature review can support your method. However, it is necessary to present what the other research did and did not do. What is the main contribution of your research? What is the difference? What do you add beyond what is known?

3. Materials and Methods

The asphalt is classified by penetration, viscosity or PG?

Table 1: Please provide the test methods standards and the specification limits. Table 1 refers to the results or specifications. Does the asphalt fit into the specification?

The aggregate's nominal size must be described. Table 2 - provides the test method standards.

Marshall method - what standard was used? How many blows per sample side?

Tables 1, 2 and 3 - provide comments about the obtained results. Correct Table 3 legend - "table" is missing.

The absence of a methodological discussion of data and method leaves readers uncertain about the approach's reliability. Assumptions lack detailed explanations, leaving readers without insight into their selection. Maybe including a flowchart of the methodology with described phases can help the understanding.

4. Results

Please try to improve the figures quality; the parameters' acronyms must be identified with a legend.

In the section experiments, it is necessary to present the standards followed to perform the tests. When a result is present, at least a comment must be made.

The discussion was missing in this work. The results were merely presented. The significance and implications of major contributors were not elaborated upon, missing the opportunity to discuss the context. Potential limitations of the approach and methods were not addressed.

The results discussion lacks acknowledgement of potential opposing viewpoints and limitations in the study's approach and results, hindering a comprehensive analysis.

5. Conclusion

The conclusion should also contain the following items: contribution to the body of knowledge and research limitations. Prospects, challenges, future work, limitations, etc., must be discussed.

It is important to revise the English grammar.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our submitted paper. The paper has been revised in accordance with the review comments. The specific changes are as follows：

1. Abstract

The long sentence has been modified.

Summer is characterized by heavy rainfalls and a rapid drop in road temperature mainly referring to the coastal areas of southern China.

2. Introduction

The long sentence has been modified.

Some discussions have been added to the introduction to address the issues you have raised.

This part of the content has been introduced to the relevant methods used by previous researchers (AASHTO T 182, AASHTO T 283, wet and dry cycle, etc.) and the difference between the contents of this paper. On the one hand,  the previous research content for the average annual temperature in the north of China's low temperature, the day and night temperature difference is significant, the freezing and thawing cycle is frequent in the region of the asphalt pavement is located in natural environments or a slight change in temperature and humidity conditions caused by the asphalt and aggregate adhesion is reduced. This paper studies the southern summer high-temperature rainstorms in the region climate characteristics do not match. On the other hand, the attenuation of asphalt mixtures at different depths has not been investigated in previous studies.

3. Materials and Methods

Tables 1 - 2 have been supplemented with relevant test methods.

Asphalt grading methods have been added.

Flow charts have been added.

4. Results

Added a discussion section as you suggested

5. Discussion

Changes have been made in accordance with your suggestions

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript of the article is devoted to the study of the mechanical properties of asphalt mixtures under the influence of wet temperature cycles. The results presented in the manuscript are of certain interest and novelty, correspond to the direction of the journal and are recommended for publication after a minor revision.

The manuscript contains the following comments and recommendations:

1. There are numerous repetitions of words, phrases and sentences: line 25 (modulus of strength - 2 times), line 26 (asphalt mixes and asphalt mixtures - 3 times), lines 163-164 (the loading rate - 3 times, the test temperature - 2 times), line 178 (existing specifications - 2 times), lines 256-258 (sentence repeated twice, was on lines 252-256), line 331 (sentence with reference to Table 4 repeated twice).

2. On line 78 the author of literary sources 13 and 14 is incorrectly indicated as Wang et al., among the authors on lines 444-447 there is no such scientist.

3. The word “Table” is missing on line 110.

4. On line 132 it is not clear what the interval 6.5-8.5 means.

5. On line 167 there is a symbol A, which is not in the formula. On line 275 the word “tensile” must be corrected.

6. It is recommended that the test specification on lines 190-191 be included in the reference list.

7. On line 216 the strength difference is incorrectly stated as 11.16%, it should be 12.16%.

8. In Figures 5a, 5b and 5d, the number of cycles/number axis is indicated in the range from 0 to 100 after 20 cycles; in all other figures it is indicated after 25 cycles.

9. The sentence on line 304 is incomplete.

10. It is recommended to decipher the abbreviations GTMS (line 327) and KVF (line 345).

11. It is recommended to check the sentence in the Conclusion on lines 383-386, since the strength values are repeated or the sentence is constructed incorrectly and is unclear.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our submitted paper. The paper has been revised in accordance with the review comments. The specific changes are as follows：

1. It has been deleted of repeated words and sentences
2. The references have been modified to correspond
3. The word “Table” has been added.
4. The interval 6.5-8.5 has been modified and indicated means, 
5. It has been corrected about the symbol A.
6. Incorrect strengths have been corrected. 
7. Figure 5 has been corrected.
8. It has been put in the reference list by the modification test specification.
9. The sentence on line 304 has been completed
10. The abbreviations of GTMS and Kvf have been deciphered.   
11. The sentence on line 383-386 has been modified.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the authors time and efforts in revising the manuscript. The earlier feedback was considered in the new manuscript.

No comments.