Research on Micro-Mechanics Modelling of TPU-Modified Asphalt Mastic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors reported an alternative for asphalt production by using a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer within the composition. The authors organized well the material and supported with data to prove their expected outcome.  However, there are still minor issues that may need further clarification. 

1. The authors mentioned about Thermoplastic Polyurethane Elastomer; however, no thermal properties were presented to demonstrate the thermoplasticity of the polymer or final asphalt.  

2.The authors presented more the rheological aspects of the materials and no details on the thermal aspects. The authors are requested to provide details.

3.Furthermore, the title should be adjusted accordingly to the data provided. 

 

Author Response

Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling

 

Reviewers Comments

 

Dear editors,

Thank you very much for your great efforts in dealing with our manuscript entitled Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling (No.: Coatings-1783680). And we also sincerely appreciate the reviewers for their positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have made corresponding modifications one by one according to the comments and marked them in red-color word. In addition, we also made a detailed modification, supplement or correction on the text including the technical and the linguistic errors (sentence building, grammatical errors and repetition). Below are the authors’ detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Many thanks again.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors

 

************************************************************************************

 

Reviewer: 1

 

The authors reported an alternative for asphalt production by using a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer within the composition. The authors organized well the material and supported with data to prove their expected outcome.  However, there are still minor issues that may need further clarification. 

 

1. The authors mentioned about Thermoplastic Polyurethane Elastomer; however, no thermal properties were presented to demonstrate the thermoplasticity of the polymer or final asphalt.  

Response: We supplement the DSR test to describe the thermal properties of TPU modified asphalt.“Rutting factor (G^*/sinδ）represents the ability of asphalt to resist permanent deformation under repeated loads. The higher the G^*/sinδ, the stronger the high temperature rutting resistance and fatigue cracking resistance of the asphalt mastic. The change of the G^*/sinδ of TPU modified asphalt mastic with the different ratio of F/A and temperature is shown in the Fig. 10......”(Line 330-348)

 

2.The authors presented more the rheological aspects of the materials and no details on the thermal aspects. The authors are requested to provide details.

Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. This paper is based on the model establishment and improvement of TPU modified asphalt mastic with different F/A. We have also seriously considered them and it is very necessary discuss in thermal properties of TPU modified asphalt mastic. At present, relevant tests cannot be carried out smoothly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We will definitely adopt your suggestions and conduct a comprehensive and systematic study of the DSC test and TG test on asphalt mastic in the future, Many thanks again.

 

3.Furthermore, the title should be adjusted accordingly to the data provided. 

Response: According to the revision opinion of the reviewer, the title has been changed to “Research on Micro-mechanics Modelling of TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic”.

 

Reviewer: 1

 

I have read your paper with attention and pleasure.

 

In my opinion, the manuscript Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling presents original research and innovative solution and could be interesting for readers of the MDPI Coatings Journal.

 

The motivation is clear. The object of study, as well as the results, are comprehensively described providing valuable conclusions.

 

The paper is organised in a logical manner. The state of art covers the main results in the field. The contributions of the paper are clearly stated in the Introduction chapter.

 

I have no objections to recommend publishing this paper. However, due to the listed below drawbacks, my recommendation is "Accept after minor revision". In my opinion, several aspects require clarification. Please revise and add some comments and improvements according to the following:

 

1.The work presents a multitude of results. With the presentation as it is currently in the article, it is difficult to juxtapose them, compare and formulate conclusions. in my opinion, it will be valuable to prepare a tabular summary of the results shown in the figures. For example, for the results shown in Figs. 32, 33, 34, 35, the obtained relationship is a linear function (or close to a linear relationship). Thus, you can easily define a mathematical description in the form of a formula for a linear function. Listing the coefficients from the formula will facilitate comparison. In the case of the dependencies shown in Figs. 27-31, one can also try to find a mathematical description of the relationship.

Response: We have performed linear fitting of predicted values and measured values as required, and analyzed the linear fitting results with emphasis. (Line 738-808), “in Figs. 27-31, one can also try to find a mathematical description of the relationship.” Thank you very much for your suggestion, and we have taken it into serious consideration. We think this part compares the measured value with the model value. We have modified the linear dependence later from Figs. 32, 33, 34, 35, If this part is modified, the data is duplicated.

 

2. no detailed data on the equipment used for XRD test, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) - manufacturer, device parameters

Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. We have modified it, please refer to the revised paper for details. (Line 153, 156, 166)

 

3.the formatting of subsection titles is inconsistent

Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. We have checked out all the formatting of subsection titles, relevant errors have been corrected.(Line 112, 178, 874)

 

4.line 775: Fig.36 - space omitted

 Response: Space has been omitted. (Line 775 has been changed to 795)

 

Reviewer: 3

 

The manuscript proposed a micro-mechanical model for thermoplastic-polyurethane-elastomer-modified asphalt mastic. This model considered the interaction between asphalt and mineral powder. This manuscript needs essential modifications as follows:

 

Sec. 1. The English language of the manuscript must be improved. Please use short sentences. Please, do not use long sentences such as the following: Line # 11 to 15, Line # 22 to 26, and Line # 107 to 111. The abstract must be rewritten.

 Response: We have improved the English language of the manuscript, and the abstract has been rewritten. (Line 11-15, 16-17, 22-26, 31-32, 106, 107-111, 122-123, 137, 873)

 

Sec. 2. Experiment: all standards used in this manuscript must be updated. For example, DIN 53479 1976 Edition, July 1976, is Not Active. See details Superseded By: DIN EN ISO 1183-1. https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=DIN%2053479&item_s_key=00028722

 Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. All standards used in this manuscript have been updated. (Line 120, 967-978)

 

Sec. 3. The first and second authors of Ref. 33 are the co-authors of the present manuscript. The authors must explain clearly the contribution of the present work to this model. If not, they must be rewritten as previous work in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3 must be omitted.

 Response: We have omitted the authors of the present manuscript, and explain clearly the contribution of the present work.

 

Sec. 4. Figures 37 to 39 should be omitted since they do not represent any addition. It is sufficient to explain the effect of those parameters. 

Response: We have performed linear fitting of predicted values and measured values as required, and analyzed the linear fitting results with emphasis. (Line 738-808)

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read your paper with attention and pleasure.

In my opinion, the manuscript Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling presents original research and innovative solution and could be interesting for readers of the MDPI Coatings Journal.

The motivation is clear. The object of study, as well as the results, are comprehensively described providing valuable conclusions.

The paper is organised in a logical manner. The state of art covers the main results in the field. The contributions of the paper are clearly stated in the Introduction chapter.

I have no objections to recommend publishing this paper. However, due to the listed below drawbacks, my recommendation is "Accept after minor revision". In my opinion, several aspects require clarification. Please revise and add some comments and improvements according to the following:

 

- The work presents a multitude of results. With the presentation as it is currently in the article, it is difficult to juxtapose them, compare and formulate conclusions. in my opinion, it will be valuable to prepare a tabular summary of the results shown in the figures. For example, for the results shown in Figs. 32, 33, 34, 35, the obtained relationship is a linear function (or close to a linear relationship). Thus, you can easily define a mathematical description in the form of a formula for a linear function. Listing the coefficients from the formula will facilitate comparison. In the case of the dependencies shown in Figs. 27-31, one can also try to find a mathematical description of the relationship.

- no detailed data on the equipment used for XRD test, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) - manufacturer, device parameters

- the formatting of subsection titles is inconsistent

- line 775: Fig.36 - space omitted

 

Author Response

Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling

 

Reviewers Comments

 

Dear editors,

Thank you very much for your great efforts in dealing with our manuscript entitled Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling (No.: Coatings-1783680). And we also sincerely appreciate the reviewers for their positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have made corresponding modifications one by one according to the comments and marked them in red-color word. In addition, we also made a detailed modification, supplement or correction on the text including the technical and the linguistic errors (sentence building, grammatical errors and repetition). Below are the authors’ detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Many thanks again.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors

 

************************************************************************************

 

Reviewer: 1

 

The authors reported an alternative for asphalt production by using a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer within the composition. The authors organized well the material and supported with data to prove their expected outcome.  However, there are still minor issues that may need further clarification. 

 

1. The authors mentioned about Thermoplastic Polyurethane Elastomer; however, no thermal properties were presented to demonstrate the thermoplasticity of the polymer or final asphalt.  

Response: We supplement the DSR test to describe the thermal properties of TPU modified asphalt.“Rutting factor (G^*/sinδ）represents the ability of asphalt to resist permanent deformation under repeated loads. The higher the G^*/sinδ, the stronger the high temperature rutting resistance and fatigue cracking resistance of the asphalt mastic. The change of the G^*/sinδ of TPU modified asphalt mastic with the different ratio of F/A and temperature is shown in the Fig. 10......”(Line 330-348)

 

2.The authors presented more the rheological aspects of the materials and no details on the thermal aspects. The authors are requested to provide details.

Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. This paper is based on the model establishment and improvement of TPU modified asphalt mastic with different F/A. We have also seriously considered them and it is very necessary discuss in thermal properties of TPU modified asphalt mastic. At present, relevant tests cannot be carried out smoothly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We will definitely adopt your suggestions and conduct a comprehensive and systematic study of the DSC test and TG test on asphalt mastic in the future, Many thanks again.

 

3.Furthermore, the title should be adjusted accordingly to the data provided. 

Response: According to the revision opinion of the reviewer, the title has been changed to “Research on Micro-mechanics Modelling of TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic”.

 

Reviewer: 1

 

I have read your paper with attention and pleasure.

 

In my opinion, the manuscript Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling presents original research and innovative solution and could be interesting for readers of the MDPI Coatings Journal.

 

The motivation is clear. The object of study, as well as the results, are comprehensively described providing valuable conclusions.

 

The paper is organised in a logical manner. The state of art covers the main results in the field. The contributions of the paper are clearly stated in the Introduction chapter.

 

I have no objections to recommend publishing this paper. However, due to the listed below drawbacks, my recommendation is "Accept after minor revision". In my opinion, several aspects require clarification. Please revise and add some comments and improvements according to the following:

 

1.The work presents a multitude of results. With the presentation as it is currently in the article, it is difficult to juxtapose them, compare and formulate conclusions. in my opinion, it will be valuable to prepare a tabular summary of the results shown in the figures. For example, for the results shown in Figs. 32, 33, 34, 35, the obtained relationship is a linear function (or close to a linear relationship). Thus, you can easily define a mathematical description in the form of a formula for a linear function. Listing the coefficients from the formula will facilitate comparison. In the case of the dependencies shown in Figs. 27-31, one can also try to find a mathematical description of the relationship.

Response: We have performed linear fitting of predicted values and measured values as required, and analyzed the linear fitting results with emphasis. (Line 738-808), “in Figs. 27-31, one can also try to find a mathematical description of the relationship.” Thank you very much for your suggestion, and we have taken it into serious consideration. We think this part compares the measured value with the model value. We have modified the linear dependence later from Figs. 32, 33, 34, 35, If this part is modified, the data is duplicated.

 

2. no detailed data on the equipment used for XRD test, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) - manufacturer, device parameters

Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. We have modified it, please refer to the revised paper for details. (Line 153, 156, 166)

 

3.the formatting of subsection titles is inconsistent

Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. We have checked out all the formatting of subsection titles, relevant errors have been corrected.(Line 112, 178, 874)

 

4.line 775: Fig.36 - space omitted

 Response: Space has been omitted. (Line 775 has been changed to 795)

 

Reviewer: 3

 

The manuscript proposed a micro-mechanical model for thermoplastic-polyurethane-elastomer-modified asphalt mastic. This model considered the interaction between asphalt and mineral powder. This manuscript needs essential modifications as follows:

 

Sec. 1. The English language of the manuscript must be improved. Please use short sentences. Please, do not use long sentences such as the following: Line # 11 to 15, Line # 22 to 26, and Line # 107 to 111. The abstract must be rewritten.

 Response: We have improved the English language of the manuscript, and the abstract has been rewritten. (Line 11-15, 16-17, 22-26, 31-32, 106, 107-111, 122-123, 137, 873)

 

Sec. 2. Experiment: all standards used in this manuscript must be updated. For example, DIN 53479 1976 Edition, July 1976, is Not Active. See details Superseded By: DIN EN ISO 1183-1. https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=DIN%2053479&item_s_key=00028722

 Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. All standards used in this manuscript have been updated. (Line 120, 967-978)

 

Sec. 3. The first and second authors of Ref. 33 are the co-authors of the present manuscript. The authors must explain clearly the contribution of the present work to this model. If not, they must be rewritten as previous work in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3 must be omitted.

 Response: We have omitted the authors of the present manuscript, and explain clearly the contribution of the present work.

 

Sec. 4. Figures 37 to 39 should be omitted since they do not represent any addition. It is sufficient to explain the effect of those parameters. 

Response: We have performed linear fitting of predicted values and measured values as required, and analyzed the linear fitting results with emphasis. (Line 738-808)

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript proposed a micro-mechanical model for thermoplastic-polyurethane-elastomer-modified asphalt mastic. This model considered the interaction between asphalt and mineral powder. This manuscript needs essential modifications as follows:

 

·         The English language of the manuscript must be improved. Please use short sentences. Please, do not use long sentences such as the following: Line # 11 to 15, Line # 22 to 26, and Line # 107 to 111. The abstract must be rewritten.

·         Sec. 2. Experiment: all standards used in this manuscript must be updated. For example, DIN 53479 1976 Edition, July 1976, is Not Active. See details Superseded By: DIN EN ISO 1183-1. https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=DIN%2053479&item_s_key=00028722

·         Sec. 3. The first and second authors of Ref. 33 are the co-authors of the present manuscript. The authors must explain clearly the contribution of the present work to this model. If not, they must be rewritten as previous work in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3 must be omitted.

·         Sec. 4. Figures 37 to 39 should be omitted since they do not represent any addition. It is sufficient to explain the effect of those parameters.  

 

 

Author Response

Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling

 

Reviewers Comments

 

Dear editors,

Thank you very much for your great efforts in dealing with our manuscript entitled Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling (No.: Coatings-1783680). And we also sincerely appreciate the reviewers for their positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have made corresponding modifications one by one according to the comments and marked them in red-color word. In addition, we also made a detailed modification, supplement or correction on the text including the technical and the linguistic errors (sentence building, grammatical errors and repetition). Below are the authors’ detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Many thanks again.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors

 

************************************************************************************

 

Reviewer: 1

 

The authors reported an alternative for asphalt production by using a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer within the composition. The authors organized well the material and supported with data to prove their expected outcome.  However, there are still minor issues that may need further clarification. 

 

1. The authors mentioned about Thermoplastic Polyurethane Elastomer; however, no thermal properties were presented to demonstrate the thermoplasticity of the polymer or final asphalt.  

Response: We supplement the DSR test to describe the thermal properties of TPU modified asphalt.“Rutting factor (G^*/sinδ）represents the ability of asphalt to resist permanent deformation under repeated loads. The higher the G^*/sinδ, the stronger the high temperature rutting resistance and fatigue cracking resistance of the asphalt mastic. The change of the G^*/sinδ of TPU modified asphalt mastic with the different ratio of F/A and temperature is shown in the Fig. 10......”(Line 330-348)

 

2.The authors presented more the rheological aspects of the materials and no details on the thermal aspects. The authors are requested to provide details.

Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. This paper is based on the model establishment and improvement of TPU modified asphalt mastic with different F/A. We have also seriously considered them and it is very necessary discuss in thermal properties of TPU modified asphalt mastic. At present, relevant tests cannot be carried out smoothly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We will definitely adopt your suggestions and conduct a comprehensive and systematic study of the DSC test and TG test on asphalt mastic in the future, Many thanks again.

 

3.Furthermore, the title should be adjusted accordingly to the data provided. 

Response: According to the revision opinion of the reviewer, the title has been changed to “Research on Micro-mechanics Modelling of TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic”.

 

Reviewer: 1

 

I have read your paper with attention and pleasure.

 

In my opinion, the manuscript Research on TPU Modified Asphalt Mastic based on micro-mechanics modelling presents original research and innovative solution and could be interesting for readers of the MDPI Coatings Journal.

 

The motivation is clear. The object of study, as well as the results, are comprehensively described providing valuable conclusions.

 

The paper is organised in a logical manner. The state of art covers the main results in the field. The contributions of the paper are clearly stated in the Introduction chapter.

 

I have no objections to recommend publishing this paper. However, due to the listed below drawbacks, my recommendation is "Accept after minor revision". In my opinion, several aspects require clarification. Please revise and add some comments and improvements according to the following:

 

1.The work presents a multitude of results. With the presentation as it is currently in the article, it is difficult to juxtapose them, compare and formulate conclusions. in my opinion, it will be valuable to prepare a tabular summary of the results shown in the figures. For example, for the results shown in Figs. 32, 33, 34, 35, the obtained relationship is a linear function (or close to a linear relationship). Thus, you can easily define a mathematical description in the form of a formula for a linear function. Listing the coefficients from the formula will facilitate comparison. In the case of the dependencies shown in Figs. 27-31, one can also try to find a mathematical description of the relationship.

Response: We have performed linear fitting of predicted values and measured values as required, and analyzed the linear fitting results with emphasis. (Line 738-808), “in Figs. 27-31, one can also try to find a mathematical description of the relationship.” Thank you very much for your suggestion, and we have taken it into serious consideration. We think this part compares the measured value with the model value. We have modified the linear dependence later from Figs. 32, 33, 34, 35, If this part is modified, the data is duplicated.

 

2. no detailed data on the equipment used for XRD test, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) - manufacturer, device parameters

Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. We have modified it, please refer to the revised paper for details. (Line 153, 156, 166)

 

3.the formatting of subsection titles is inconsistent

Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. We have checked out all the formatting of subsection titles, relevant errors have been corrected.(Line 112, 178, 874)

 

4.line 775: Fig.36 - space omitted

 Response: Space has been omitted. (Line 775 has been changed to 795)

 

Reviewer: 3

 

The manuscript proposed a micro-mechanical model for thermoplastic-polyurethane-elastomer-modified asphalt mastic. This model considered the interaction between asphalt and mineral powder. This manuscript needs essential modifications as follows:

 

Sec. 1. The English language of the manuscript must be improved. Please use short sentences. Please, do not use long sentences such as the following: Line # 11 to 15, Line # 22 to 26, and Line # 107 to 111. The abstract must be rewritten.

 Response: We have improved the English language of the manuscript, and the abstract has been rewritten. (Line 11-15, 16-17, 22-26, 31-32, 106, 107-111, 122-123, 137, 873)

 

Sec. 2. Experiment: all standards used in this manuscript must be updated. For example, DIN 53479 1976 Edition, July 1976, is Not Active. See details Superseded By: DIN EN ISO 1183-1. https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=DIN%2053479&item_s_key=00028722

 Response: Thank you very much for your review comments. All standards used in this manuscript have been updated. (Line 120, 967-978)

 

Sec. 3. The first and second authors of Ref. 33 are the co-authors of the present manuscript. The authors must explain clearly the contribution of the present work to this model. If not, they must be rewritten as previous work in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3 must be omitted.

 Response: We have omitted the authors of the present manuscript, and explain clearly the contribution of the present work.

 

Sec. 4. Figures 37 to 39 should be omitted since they do not represent any addition. It is sufficient to explain the effect of those parameters. 

Response: We have performed linear fitting of predicted values and measured values as required, and analyzed the linear fitting results with emphasis. (Line 738-808)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered the addressed queries and updated the manuscript accordingly. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have successfully addressed all my comments.  Therefore, I recommend the publication of this manuscript.