Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Printed Edition

A printed edition of this Special Issue is available at MDPI Books....

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Aggregate Gradation Variation on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures

Coatings 2022, 12(11), 1608; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12111608

by Yanchao Yue¹

, Moustafa Abdelsalam^2,*

and M. S. Eisa^2,*

Reviewer 1:

Ana Pilipovic

Reviewer 2:

Ramadhansyah Putra Jaya

Reviewer 3:

Marius Miricioiu

Coatings 2022, 12(11), 1608; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12111608

Submission received: 13 September 2022 / Revised: 17 October 2022 / Accepted: 20 October 2022 / Published: 22 October 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Asphalt Pavement Materials and Surface)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors structured the work nicely, explained the regulations, tests and results. However, to raise the scientific level, a discussion chapter should be introduced, in which you refer to previous research.

Author Response

Coatings Journal

Title

Aggregate Gradation Diffraction on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures

Author(s)

Yanchao Yue¹, Moustafa Abdelsalam^2,* and M. S. Eisa ^3,*

Authors’ Institutions

¹School of Human Settlements and Civil Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an.

^{2, 3}Civil Engineering Department, Benha Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, P.O. 13512, New Benha, Qalubiya Governorate, Benha, Egypt

Reply to review comments

(Letters C & R denote comment and reply respectively)

We would like to thank you for your reply, interest, support and constructive comments, which certainly will help us to improve the quality of the manuscript. As instructed and suggested, we have addressed all review comments on a point-by-point basis and made the required revisions to the manuscript accordingly.

Notice: Our changes are highlighted in yellow in our revised manuscript for all reviewer comments.

Reviewer #1:

C1: The authors structured the work nicely, explained the regulations, tests and results. However, to raise the scientific level, a discussion chapter should be introduced, in which you refer to previous research.

R1: Thank you so much dear reviewer for your kindly comment, we updated the discussion part as shown from line 305 to 423, but limited studies have been conducted to determine how far to deviate beyond the upper and lower specification limits of aggregate gradations and these studies using different criteria so I cannot comparing between my outcomes and the previous researches.

Results and discussions

4.1. Marshall Test Results

Marshall Test was conducted to determine the OAC for each mix, as reported in Table 4. Then evaluate the properties of the control mix and other mixes at different gradations. Different gradations showed different views of the aggregate gradation diffraction during asphalt production. The mixes of M0 through M6 for 3B mix showed this difference of gradations as shown in Figs. 8. Where M0 presented the mix applied at the design gradation curve (control mix). M1, M2 and M3 presented the mixes applied at +2%, +4% and +6%, respectively, above the upper specification limit. M4, M5 and M6 presented the mixes applied at -2%, -4% and -6%, respectively, below the lower specification limit. The previous mixes of M0 through M6 differed at the OAC. The Marshall properties (stability, flow, bulk specific gravity, air voids, voids in mineral aggregate and voids filled with asphalt) were measured for all the mixes studied as shown in Table 4. Then the data of the results would be collected and analyzed.

According to Table 4, the aggregate gradation diffraction above the upper specification limit had a negative effect on the mix stability. The stability value for the control mix (M0) was 1203 Kg. The following two mixes (M1 and M2), in which the gradation diffraction was increased to +2% and +4% above the upper specification limit respectively, the mix stability almost was not affected as it decreased by 1.7% and 2.3%. For the following mix (M3), as the gradation was increased to +6% above the upper specification limit, the mix stability decreased by 18%, reaching its lowest value of 985 kg but remained higher than the minimum stability value (900 kg) and it is may be due to the excessive asphalt in the mix due to the 30% reduction in voids filled with asphalt (VFA) as a result to the fineness of the stone matrix.

Concerning values of flow for 3B mixes that lie above the upper specification limit, the flow value for M0 was 3.2 mm. For the following two mixes (M1 and M2), as the gradation diffraction was increased above the upper specification limit by 2% and 4% respectively, the flow increased by 12.5% and 20% but still comply with the specification (2mm ≤ Flow ≤ 4 mm). Mix (M3) lies beyond the specification requirement for flow as its flow was (5.2 mm). The increase in flow is attributed to the excessive asphalt in the mix as it is the same reason of stability reduction.

Values of mix stability for 3B mixes that lie below the lower specification limit are displayed in Table 4. The mix stability for the following three mixes (M4, M5, and M6) increased by 8.5%, 9.6%, and 10% respectively as the gradation diffraction was below the lower specification limit by -2%, -4% and -6% , achieving stability values of 1306 kg at -2%, 1318 kg at -4%, and 1334 kg at -6% below the lower specification limit. This increase in stability is attributed to the adequate asphalt content in the mixes due to the increase in the voids in stone matrix (VMA) so the voids filled with asphalt (VFA) included the entire content of the asphalt.

Based on the results in Table 4 show values of flow for 3B mixes that lie below the lower specification limit. The flow value for M0 was 3.2 mm. For the following mix (M4), in which the gradation was decreased to -2% below the lower specification limit, the flow decreased, reaching 2.8 mm, but remained higher than the minimum flow value (2 mm). This value decreased the flow by 12.5% compared with the control mix (M0). The following two mixes (M5 and M6) gave flow values beyond the specification value for flow (> 4mm) according to the Egyptian code. The decrease in flow is attributed to the absence of excessive asphalt in the mixes and the reduction of fines in the stone matrix.

4.2. Performance evaluation tests

As M2 mix was the highest diffracted mix above the lower specification limit for 3B mixes gradation that comply with the specification requirements and M4 was the highest diffracted mix below the lower specification limit for 3B mixes gradation that comply with the specification requirements, M0, M2, and M4 were chosen to conducted to the performance evaluation tests (wheel load tracking and indirect tensile test).

4.2.1 Wheel loading tracking test results

Fig. 9 presents the rutting depth test results of the three mixes; M0 (Control), M2 (the best mix that lies at +4% above the upper specification limit) and M4 (the best mix that lies at -2% below the lower specification limit). Fig. 9 shows a rutting value of 3.92 mm for M0 mix, 4.85 mm for M2 mix, and 4.34 mm for M4 mix. Relative to the M0, the increase in rutting depth was 18% for the M2 and 9.5% for the M4. This implies that compared to the mix M2, the mix M4 had a superior rutting resistance. It is attributed to the increase in stability by 11.1% and the reduction in flow by 30% for M4 when compared with M2.

The main reason for increasing the rutting depth for M2 and M4 mix is that the total air voids among the skeleton of aggregate is increased which lead to increase the bitumen absorbed by the mixes, thus the rutting depth of M2 and M4 mixes is slightly decreased.

Accordingly, it could be concluded that the 3B mix at -2% below the lower gradation limit showed high resistance to rutting phenomena compared with

4.2.3 Indirect tensile strength test

The TSR results of the three mixes are shown in Fig. 10. The results shown in Fig. 10 indicates that while the TSR for the mix M0 was 83.87%, a value of 81.62% was recorded for the mix M2. Compared to the mix M0, this represents about 2.7% reduction in the TSR. Fig. 9 also shows that at a TSR value of 82.84%, the TSR of the mix M4 was slightly better than that of the mix M2. The main inference from these results is that comparing mix M2 and mix M4, the latter possesses a better resistance to moisture induced damage.

Accordingly, it could be concluded that the 3B mix at -2% below the lower gradation limit showed good resistance to moisture damage phenomena compared with the 3B mix at +4% above the upper gradation limit. It is may be due to the fineness of its stone matrix that lead to increase the cohesion of between the stone matrix and the low asphalt content that affected harmfully with elevated temperature of water path so the tensile strength of asphalt mixes was increased accordingly. As well as, the increase of adhesion force among asphalt mastic and aggregate lead to improve the anti-shear strength and rutting of the asphalt mixes.

Generally, based on this discussion, it could be concluded that the 3B mix at -2% below the lower gradation limit presented a good performance against moisture induced damage compared with the 3B mix at +4% above the upper gradation limit.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

1. Suggest title. Aggregate Gradation Diffraction on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures.
2. Abstract must be includes: Background study, problem statement, points out research gaps, aims & objectives, summary of methods, and novelty of research study.
3. Introduction on related study are not enough, more improvement are required. Besides, some sentences need the references. Suggest as follow: (a). "....typically includes mixing, transportation, paving...", Ref. https://doi.org/10.15282/construction.v1i1.6324. (b). "....filler to form a multiphase composite with air voids", Ref. https://doi.org/10.15282/construction.v1i1.6502. (c). ".....the asphalt mixture which waste raw materials....", Ref. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.014.
4. Too many objectives and not reflected to discussions and conclusions.
5. Table 3. Why having 100 limits for two different sieve size?
6. Fig. 1. Too simple flow chart and difficult to understand.

7. Fig. 4. Not necessary

8. Table 4 and Fig. 8. Lack of discussions, only data presented. Why increases or decreases, not clearly described.

9. Fig. 9. Lack of analysis & discussions.

10. Conclusions not reflected to objectives and aims of study.

Author Response

Coatings Journal

Title

Aggregate Gradation Diffraction on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures

Author(s)

Yanchao Yue¹, Moustafa Abdelsalam^2,* and M. S. Eisa ^3,*

Authors’ Institutions

¹School of Human Settlements and Civil Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an.

^{2, 3}Civil Engineering Department, Benha Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, P.O. 13512, New Benha, Qalubiya Governorate, Benha, Egypt

Reply to review comments

(Letters C & R denote comment and reply respectively)

Notice: Our changes are highlighted in yellow in our revised manuscript for all reviewer comments.

Reviewer #2:

C1: Suggest title. Aggregate Gradation Diffraction on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures.

R1: Thanks for your comments. We changed the manuscript title to be (Aggregate Gradation Diffraction on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures) in line 1 and 2.

C2: Abstract must be includes: Background study, problem statement, points out research gaps, aims & objectives, summary of methods, and novelty of research study.

R2: Thanks for your constructive comments. We updated the abstract from line 10 to 29.

National highway projects present a crucial role in economic growth, as they have a great influence on the national income. Therefore, the decision makers plan to construct these projects at a rapid rate. To achieve the just aforesaid, the utilization of asphalt of adequate quality and gradation is essential. The key problem which lies in recent decades is that many types of asphalt mixtures are rejected and reconstructed in the site due to the gradation diffraction of aggregates in the asphalt mixture which waste raw materials, cost and time. Thus, this research seeks to assess the possibility of accepting asphalt mixes with aggregates gradation diffraction (within the range from +4% above the upper specification limit to -2% below the lower specification limit). A wearing surface mix with gradation 3B was prepared according to the Egyptian code. The gradation variation was presented as the aggregate gradation is out of the specification limits during Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) production. The aggregate gradations lie above and below the upper and lower specification limits, respectively, by ± 2%, ± 4% and ± 6%. The design gradation of the control mix was included as a reference case. The different mix properties were measured using the Marshall Mix design method. Then, the performance of HMA mixes were evaluated under the effects of high temperature and water cycles through applying wheel loading tracking and Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) tests. The results show that the 3B mixes with a gradation within a range of +4% to -2% of the upper and lower specification limits recorded the lowest rutting and the highest water damage resistance in hot regions compared to ordinary asphalt mixes. In summary, the new aggregate gradation limits will provide a reference for the design of asphalt mixture in hot climate regions.

C3: Introduction on related study are not enough, more improvement are required. Besides, some sentences need the references. Suggest as follow: (a). "....typically includes mixing, transportation, paving...", Ref. https://doi.org/10.15282/construction.v1i1.6324. (b). "....filler to form a multiphase composite with air voids", Ref. https://doi.org/10.15282/construction.v1i1.6502. (c). ".....the asphalt mixture which waste raw materials....", Ref. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.014.

R3: Ok. We added some studies in literature review from lines 65 to 116 and also added the references.

Zhang et al. [10] evaluated the aggregate gradation in asphalt mixtures on the characterize load carrying capacity and rutting resistance. Zhang recorded that the aggregates retaining on sieve sizes of 2.36 and 4.75 mm provide more than 50% contribution to resist load and rutting, and the aggregates retaining on sieve sizes of 1.18, 0.6 and 0.3 mm provide more than 50% contribution to strength the structure. The Influence of Aggregate Gradation on Clogging Characteristics of Porous Asphalt Mixtures was evaluated by martin et al. [11], results revealed that aggregate gradation was found to be strongly correlated to the macrotexture depth of the porous pavement and the permeability of the mixes both before and after clogging. Abo-Qudais et al. [12] study the Effect of aggregate properties on asphalt mixtures stripping and creep behavior and results documented that unconditioned HMA specimens prepared using basalt aggregate resist creep better than those prepared using limestone. However, after conditioning, mixes prepared using basalt were less resistant to creep strain than those prepared using limestone aggregate. Percent absorbed asphalt was found to be directly related to stripping resistant. Also, mixes prepared using aggregate following ASTM upper limit of dense aggregate gradation presented the highest resistance to stripping. Moghaddam et al. [13] study the effects of using different types of additives and aggregate gradation on fatigue and rutting resistance of AC mixtures and it is concluded that that fatigue and rutting resistance of AC mixture could be enhanced considerably by utilization of different aggregate gradation and types of additives such as fibers. Bazi [9] reported that variability of gradation has a considerable effect on the performance of pavement. To enhance resistance to asphalt pavement rutting, Lv et al. [10] was of the opinion that adjusting the percentage of particles passing the 4.75 mm sieve should be considered. Amir Golalipour et al. [11] examined the effect of aggregate gradation diffraction on rutting characteristics of asphalt mixture and concluded that the aggregate gradation played a considerable role in resisting the permanent deformation of pavement. Yu et al. [12] investigated the influence of the aggregate gradation during construction on the asphalt pavement performance and reported that the rutting resistance increased first and then decreased with regard to the changing of the gradation from fine to coarse. In research prepared by Moustafa et al. [13], performed a laboratory study to evaluate the performance of asphalt mixtures using composite mixture of diatomite powder and lignin fiber. The results showed that the addition of diatomite powder and lignin fiber are greatly enhanced the overall performance of asphalt mixes, and the compound mixture was more effective for improving the overall asphalt performance than either lignin fiber or diatomite powder separately.Elliott et al. [13] reported that the mixtures with lower limit gradations almost had the greatest effect on HMA properties. Moreover, they found that asphalt mixtures gradations deflected to lower limit gradation showed the best performance. Awan et al. [14] applied Multi Expression Programming to predict the output parameters Marshall Flow and Marshall Stability of Asphalt Pavements, it is demonstrated that the novelette models have produced results that are consistent with the experimental data and function equally well for unknown data as well as The models developed have successfully incorporated input parameters and have the capability to predict the trends of MS and MF for flexible pavements, as revealed from the parametric study. Rafiq et al. [15] conducted a comparative comparison among Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) and Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) through using Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and the results denoted that the total LCC measurement, a total of 14% cost reduction was reported using RAP as compared to HMA. Moreover, the two materials (HMA and RAP) are manufactured in different types of manufacturing plants. Thus, in analyzing the cost difference between the two chosen manufacturing plants for virgin materials and RAP, a total of 57% cost reduction was observed for a RAP manufacturing plant. Besides this, no cost difference was observed in the rest of the phases, such as manpower, materials transportation, and construction activities, as the same procedures and types of machinery are used.

Abdullah, Baqadeem Abdullah Omar, et al. "The usage of Recycled Glass In Hot Mix Asphalt: A Review." Construction 1.1 (2021): 29-34.‏

Shahnewaz, S. M., Khairil Azman Masri, and N. A. A. A. Ghani. "Porous Asphalt Modification using Different Types of Additives: A Review." CONSTRUCTION 1.1 (2021): 44-53.‏

Hussein, Ahmed Abdulameer, et al. "Performance of nanoceramic powder on the chemical and physical properties of bitumen." Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017): 496-505.‏

C4: Too many objectives and not reflected to discussions and conclusions. .

R4: Thanks for your kindly comment, we updated the discussion part as shown from line 305 to 423.

Concerning conclusion we also updated it as displayed from 424 line to 440 .

Results and discussions

4.1. Marshall Test Results

4.2. Performance evaluation tests

4.2.1 Wheel loading tracking test results

Accordingly, it could be concluded that the 3B mix at -2% below the lower gradation limit showed high resistance to rutting phenomena compared with

4.2.3 Indirect tensile strength test

Conclusions

This paper presented a novel aggregate gradation diffraction with range (2%, 4%, and 6%) from the upper and lower specification limits of aggregate. The HMA mixtures were prepared and performed in laboratory according to the Egyptian Code specifications, afterward Marshall, wheel loading tracking and Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) tests were applied in order to evaluate the HMA properties, high temperature performance, and water stability of different asphalt mixes, respectively. Based on the research outcomes, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Both of M2 (aggregate gradation within +4% the upper specification limit) and M4 (aggregate gradation within -2% the lower specification limit) significantly enhances the asphalt mixes performance. M2 mix has clearly enhanced the water stability performance, but the enhancement of rutting resistance is limited. M4 mix has a great effect on improving both of high temperature performance and water damage resistance. The rutting resistance of the mix M4 was superior to that of the mix M2. The resistance of mix M4 to moisture damage was higher than that of the mix M2. In summary, compared to the mix M2, the capacity of the mix M4 to enhance the service life and ride quality of pavements is determined to be higher.

C5: Table 3. Why having 100 limits for two different sieve size?

R5: The specification limits 100 was selected according to the design of 3B mixture from (Egyptian Code of Highway and Transportation). For more accurate the Egyptian code matching also with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

C6. Fig. 1. Too simple flow chart and difficult to understand.

R6: Sorry for this mistake we explain this figure to be easier to understand as shown from line 168 to line 183.

The test program involves four stages, as displayed in fig.1.

In the first stage, after selection materials, five types of aggregate characterization tests will be applied; Los Angeles abrasion, water absorption, specific gravity, stripping value and selection of design gradation to attain the condition of stone-on-stone contact were undertaken. As well as the chosen asphalt binder will be evaluated through applying penetration, softening point, flash point, viscosity and ductility tests.
In the second stage, Control asphalt mix (M0) and the other five asphalt mixes (from M2 to M6) were designed and prepared according to the Egyptian code [16].
In the third stage, the effect of the aggregate gradation diffraction on HMA properties was examined based on the Marshall Mix Design Method.
In the final stage, wheel loading tracking and indirect tensile strength tests were conducted on the M0 and samples obtained from the best mixes lying above and below the upper specification limit, and the lower specification limit, respectively.

C7. Fig. 4. Not necessary

R7: Thanks for your comment. Figure no 4 shown the Marshall Apparatus, if it possible kindly we can put it. But if you need to remove it no problem I will remove it.

C8. Table 4 and Fig. 8. Lack of discussions, only data presented. Why increases or decreases, not clearly described.

R8: Thanks for your constructive comment, we updated this part in the result and discussion chapter as shown from line 319 to 351.

C9: Fig. 9. Lack of analysis & discussions

R9: Thanks for your query comment, we updated this part in the result and discussion chapter as shown from line 363 to 375.

Accordingly, it could be concluded that the 3B mix at -2% below the lower gradation limit showed high resistance to rutting phenomena compared with the 3B mix at +4% above the upper gradation limit.

C10: Conclusions not reflected to objectives and aims of study.

R10: Thanks for your kindly comment, we updated the conclusion we also updated it as displayed from lines 424 to 440 .

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The submitted article, “Laboratory Investigation of Aggregate Gradation Diffraction on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures” is interesting, original and within the scope of the journal but some changes should be addressed:

1. Please come with references for the comments from line 40 to 42, “Indeed….failures.”, and from line 57 to 60, “The pavement…in the past.”

2. Please insert in the table 1 the measurements units.

3. Please give some information regarding the reproducibility and the repeatability of the material synthesis and the tests, respectively.

4. I recommend to give information about the instruments used for tests, such as model, company name and origin country.

5. At results and discussions section please try to merge all the subsection in order to be more readable.

6. Please extend the conclusions section and do not express the conclusions by using a bulleted list.

7. Please check the references and rewrite them as it is mention in the journal guidelines.

Author Response

Coatings Journal

Title

Aggregate Gradation Diffraction on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures

Author(s)

Yanchao Yue¹, Moustafa Abdelsalam^2,* and M. S. Eisa ^3,*

Authors’ Institutions

¹School of Human Settlements and Civil Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an.

^{2, 3}Civil Engineering Department, Benha Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, P.O. 13512, New Benha, Qalubiya Governorate, Benha, Egypt

Reply to review comments

(Letters C & R denote comment and reply respectively)

Notice: Our changes are highlighted in yellow in our revised manuscript for all reviewer comments.

Reviewer #3:

C1: Please come with references for the comments from line 40 to 42, “Indeed….failures.”, and from line 57 to 60, “The pavement…in the past.”

R1: Thanks for your comments. We added references in these two parts from lines 44 to 46, and from lines 61 to 64.

Indeed, it is a well-documented fact that inconsistency in asphalt design and construction parameters has consistently caused premature performance failures [5].

The pavement design and construction literature show that many studies on the effect of the gradation diffraction on HMA properties, or rather the effect of variance of gradation that may occur during production on HMA properties have been undertaken in the past [15-20].

C2: Please insert in the table 1 the measurements units.

R2: Sorry for this mistake. We updated the table1 as shown in line 151.

Table 1. Properties of coarse aggregate.

Test No.	Test	Designation No.	Values		Specification limits
Test No.	Test	Designation No.	Type 1 (Grade I)	Type 1 (Grade II)	Specification limits
1	Bulk specific gravity (gm/cm³) Saturated surface dry specific gravity (gm/cm³) Apparent specific gravity (gm/cm³)	AASHTO T-85	2.52 2.59 2.70	2.50 2.57 2.60	N/A
2	absorption %	AASHTO T-85	2.56	2.67	≤ 5
3	Los angles abrasion test %	AASHTO T-96	22.2	24.5	≤ 40
4	Stripping Test %	AASHTO T-182	> 95	> 95	≥ 95

C3: Please give some information regarding the reproducibility and the repeatability of the material synthesis and the tests, respectively.

R3: Ok. We added information about the materials sources as shown from lines 144 to 147, and also we would like to illustrate that these tests is destructive equipment so after experiments we cannot use the samples.

The two types of coarse aggregate were obtained from the "ATAKA" quarry, Suez Governorate, where the natural siliceous sand obtained from "ELREHAB" quarry, Cairo governorate. The binder used is Suez asphalt cement with 60-70 penetration grades, and physical properties shown in Table 2.

C4: I recommend to give information about the instruments used for tests, such as model, company name and origin country.

R4: Thanks for your kindly comment, we already added these information as shown in line 189, from 217 to 218 and from 269 to 270.

Marshall machine model TO-550-1 which obtained from United States (USA).

Which manufactured in Egypt according to BS-EN 12697-22 specifications

This is an indirect tensile strength test model H1369 Which gotten from United State (USA)

C5: At results and discussions section please try to merge all the subsection in order to be more readable.

R5: Thanks for your comment. We already merge it as you suggest and we also update this part from lines 305 - 423.

Results and discussions

4.1. Marshall Test Results

4.2. Performance evaluation tests

4.2.1 Wheel loading tracking test results

Accordingly, it could be concluded that the 3B mix at -2% below the lower gradation limit showed high resistance to rutting phenomena compared with

4.2.3 Indirect tensile strength test

C7. Please extend the conclusions section and do not express the conclusions by using a bulleted list.

R7: Thanks for your comment. We updated it as you suggest from lines 424 to 440.

Conclusions

C8. Please check the references and rewrite them as it is mention in the journal guidelines

R8: Okay we checked it and rewrite it according to the journal guidelines as mentioned from lines 460-521.

References

Porter, Michael. "The competitive advantage of the inner city." The city reader. Routledge, 2015. 358-371.‏
Abdullah, Baqadeem Abdullah Omar, et al. "The usage of Recycled Glass In Hot Mix Asphalt: A Review." Construction 1.1 (2021): 29-34.‏
Coleri, Erdem, and John T. Harvey. "Evaluation of laboratory, construction, and performance variability by bootstrapping and montecarlo+ methods for rutting performance prediction of heavy vehicle simulator test sections." Journal of transportation engineering 137.12 (2011): 897.‏
Bazi, G. M., Sebaaly, P. E., Weitzel, D., and Elicegui, M. "A Laboratory Study of Construction Variability Impacts on Fatigue and Thermal Cracking Resistance of HMA Mixtures." International Journal of Pavements 5.1-2-3 (2006).‏
Elwardany, Michael, Jean-Pascal Planche, and Gayle King. "Universal and practical approach to evaluate asphalt binder resistance to thermally-induced surface damage." Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020): 119331.‏
Gao, Y., Hou, K., Jia, Y., Wei, Z., Wang, S., Li, Z, and Gong, X. "Variability evaluation of gradation for asphalt mixture in asphalt pavement construction." Automation in Construction 128 (2021): 103742.‏
Fan, Z., Du, C., Liu, P., Wang, D., and Oeser, M. "Study on interfacial debonding between bitumen and aggregate based on micromechanical damage model." International Journal of Pavement Engineering 23.2 (2022): 340-348.‏
Yue, Y., Abdelsalam, M., Khater, A., and Ghazy, M. "A comparative life cycle assessment of asphalt mixtures modified with a novel composite of diatomite powder and lignin fiber." Construction and Building Materials 323 (2022): 126608.‏
Khater, A., Luo, D., Abdelsalam, M., Yue, Y., Hou, Y., and Ghazy, M. "Laboratory evaluation of asphalt mixture performance using composite admixtures of lignin and glass fibers." Applied Sciences 11.1 (2021): 364.‏
Shahnewaz, S. M., Khairil Azman Masri, and N. A. A. A. Ghani. "Porous Asphalt Modification using Different Types of Additives: A Review." CONSTRUCTION 1.1 (2021): 44-53.‏
Wang, DuanYi, Kan Li, and Xu Cai. "Evaluation of Rutting Resistance on Asphalt Mixture Based on Aggregate Contact Characteristics, J." Journal of South China University of Technology: Natural Science Edition,(40) (2012): 121-126.‏
Husain, N. M., Karim, M. R., Mahmud, H. B., and Koting, S."Effects of aggregate gradation on the physical properties of semiflexible pavement." Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 2014 (2014).‏
Jian-zhong, P. E. I., Yan-shun, J. I. A., Jiu-peng, Z. H. A. N. G., Rui, L. I., and Ming-feng. "Research progress and future development for reliability of asphalt pavement structure." China Journal of Highway and Transport 29.1 (2016): 1.‏
Hussein, A. A., Jaya, R. P., Hassan, N. A., Yaacob, H., Huseien, G. F., and Ibrahim, M. H. W. "Performance of nanoceramic powder on the chemical and physical properties of bitumen." Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017): 496-505.‏
Zhang, Y., Luo, X., Onifade, I., Huang, X., Lytton, R. L., and Birgisson, B. "Mechanical evaluation of aggregate gradation to characterize load carrying capacity and rutting resistance of asphalt mixtures." Construction and Building Materials 205 (2019): 499-510.‏
Martin, William D., Bradley J. Putman, and Andrew I. Neptune. "Influence of aggregate gradation on clogging characteristics of porous asphalt mixtures." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 26.7 (2014): 04014026.‏
Abo-Qudais, Saad, and Haider Al-Shweily. "Effect of aggregate properties on asphalt mixtures stripping and creep behavior." Construction and Building Materials 21.9 (2007): 1886-1898.‏
Taher, Baghaee Moghaddam, Rehan Karim Mohamed, and Abdelaziz Mahrez. "A review on fatigue and rutting performance of asphalt mixes." Scientific Research and Essays 6.4 (2011): 670-682.‏
Bazi, Gabriel M. Impact of* construction variability on pavement performance. University of Nevada, Reno, 2006.‏
Lv, Q., Huang, W., Zheng, M., Sadek, H., Zhang, Y., and Yan, C. "Influence of gradation on asphalt mix rutting resistance measured by Hamburg Wheel Tracking test." Construction and Building Materials 238 (2020): 117674.‏
Golalipour, A., Jamshidi, E., Niazi, Y., Afsharikia, Z., & Khadem, M. "Effect of aggregate gradation on rutting of asphalt pavements." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 53 (2012): 440-449.‏
Yu, H., Yang, M., Qian, G., Cai, J., Zhou, H., and Fu, X. "Gradation segregation characteristic and its impact on performance of asphalt mixture." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 33.3 (2021): 04020478.‏
Abdelsalam, M., Yue, Y., Khater, A., Luo, D., Musanyufu, J., and Qin, X. Laboratory Study on the Performance of Asphalt Mixes Modified with a Novel Composite of Diatomite Powder and Lignin Fiber. Applied Sciences, 2020. 10(16): p. 5517.
Elliott, R. P., Ford Jr, M. C., Ghanim, M., and Tu, Y. F. "Effect of aggregate gradation diffraction on asphalt concrete mix properties." Transportation Research Record 1317 (1991).‏
Awan, H. H., Hussain, A., Javed, M. F., Qiu, Y., Alrowais, R., Mohamed, A. M., and Alzahrani, A. M. "Predicting Marshall Flow and Marshall Stability of Asphalt Pavements Using Multi Expression Programming." Buildings 12.3 (2022): 314.‏
Rafiq, W., Musarat, M. A., Altaf, M., Napiah, M., Sutanto, M. H., Alaloul, W. S., and Mosavi, A. "Life cycle cost analysis comparison of hot mix asphalt and reclaimed asphalt pavement: A case study." Sustainability 13.8 (2021): 4411.‏
Egyptian Code of Practice (ECP 104), Urban and rural roads, edition 1: Road materials and their tests (part four). Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities. Cairo, Egypt, (2008).
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Method of Test for Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus. T-245. AASHTO, Washington DC, USA, (2015).
Laboratory Tests Guide, General Authority for Roads, Bridges and Land Transport, Egypt, (2015).
Eisa, M. S., M. E. Basiouny, and A. M. Youssef. "Effect of using various waste materials as mineral filler on the properties of asphalt mix." Innovative Infrastructure Solutions 3.1 (2018): 1-8.‏
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage. T-283. AASHTO, Washington DC, USA, (2018).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

My suggestion was to introduce a Discussion chapter. This would certainly increase the scientific component of the paper for the authors.

Author Response

Notice: Our changes are highlighted in Turquoise in our revised manuscript for all reviewer comments.

Reviewer #1:

C1: My suggestion was to introduce a Discussion chapter. This would certainly increase the scientific component of the paper for the authors.

R1: Thank you so much for your constructive comment. We added discussion Section in manuscript from lines 416-465.

Discussion

This section aims to introduce the analysis of the main results of physical properties of six types of asphalt mixes, as well as the pavement performance under high temperature and water cycles effects.

5.1. Analysis of Marshall Test Results

Based on the results of the Marshall test mentioned in Table 4 and figure 6, it can be concluded that the aggregate gradation diffraction over the upper specification limit causes an increased in the mixture stability and decreased the flow. On the contrast, the diffraction of aggregate gradation lower than specification limit result in decreased the stability and increased the flow of mixtures.

The diffraction in aggregate gradation above the upper specification limit leads to a damaging influence on the mixture stability and it is may be due to the excessive asphalt in the mix due to the 30% reduction in voids filled with asphalt (VFA) as a result to the fineness of the stone matrix. On contract, the flow of mixtures which prepared above the upper specification limit was increased above the upper specification limit. The increase in flow is attributed to the excessive asphalt in the mix as it is the same reason of stability reduction.

The aggregate gradation diffraction under the lower specification limit leads to a significant effect on the stability of mixes. This increase in stability is attributed to the adequate asphalt content in the mixes due to the increase in the voids in stone matrix (VMA) so the voids filled with asphalt (VFA) included the entire content of the asphalt. While, the flow values of mixes that lie under the lower specification limit was decreased and it is may be because of the absence of excessive asphalt in the mixes and the reduction of fines in the stone matrix.

5.2. Analysis of Pavement Performance

5.2.1 Wheel loading tracking test

The outcomes of wheel loading tracking test revealed that the permanent deformation of M2 and M4 mix is slightly increased comparing with Control asphalt mixture.

5.2.1 Indirect Tensile test

The indirect tensile strength results from the soaking group in water and unconditional group, and tensile strength ratio (TSR) are displayed in Figure 8. Results observed that the moisture damage resistance of M2 and M4 were increased as opposed to Control asphalt Mixture

It is may be due to the fineness of its stone matrix that lead to increase the cohesion of between the stone matrix and the low asphalt content that affected harmfully with elevated temperature of water path so the tensile strength of asphalt mixes was increased accordingly. As well as, the increase of adhesion force among asphalt mastic and aggregate lead to improve the anti-shear strength and rutting of the asphalt mixes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

1. Remove Fig. 4 and Fig. 7. This is well known instruments.

2. Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. No legend for X-axis.

Author Response

Notice: Our changes are highlighted in Turquoise in our revised manuscript for all reviewer comments.

Reviewer #2:

C1: Remove Fig. 4 and Fig. 7. This is well known instruments.

R1: Thanks for your advice. We already removed the figures as you suggest.

C2: Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. No legend for X-axis.

R2: Sorry for these mistakes. We added the legend for X-axis in lines 388 and 415.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work presented experimental studies on the aggregate gradation variation in the performance of asphalt mixtures. The work used Asphalt Mixture 3B according to Egyptian code. How would this variation apply to other regions’ standard specifications? What is the reproducibility of the experiments listed in the manuscript? All the figures in the manuscripts require error bars. Instead of Figures 1-6, the experimental can be illustrated by flow diagrams or schematically.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

C1: The work used Asphalt Mixture 3B according to Egyptian code. How would this variation apply to other regions’ standard specifications?

R1: Thanks for your comments. Concerning the asphalt mixture 3B, we mentioned in our study the gradation of asphalt concrete mixes and also the specification limits which allow to any researcher in any country to apply this mix and the Egyptian code is also matching with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

C2: What is the reproducibility of the experiments listed in the manuscript?

R2: Thanks for your constructive comments. Concerning the experiments listed it is tested by destructive equipment however we can prepare the mixes a gain in laboratory, as well as it is international researcher experiments:

Marshall Test: - The test was applied according to AASHTO T-245 to determine the optimum Asphalt content (O.A.C) for each mixes.
Wheel loading tracking test: - The test is an important tool to assess the high temperature rutting resistance of various asphalt mixes in the laboratory.
Indirect Tensile Strength: - Indirect tensile (IDT) test was advanced in the USA during the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) to evaluate the asphalt mixes performance under low temperature and water damage effects.

C3: All the figures in the manuscripts require error bars.

R3: Ok. We added the error bars in figures.

C4: Instead of Figures 1-6, the experimental can be illustrated by flow diagrams or schematically.

R4: Thanks for your kindly comment, we added a flow diagram with the figure1-6 in the methodology part.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Evaluation of Aggregate Gradation Variation on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures” presented study on asphalt mixtures. The influence of different parameters was studied and analyzed. The manuscript lacks clarity and needs much improvement before further processing. It seems like this paper is directly made from thesis without putting the additional efforts required for writing manuscripts.

This reviewer recommends minor editing and resubmits for re-review.

Comments:

The English writing of the manuscript needs improvement. Therefore, it could benefit greatly from professional editing to improve technical writing and English.
Please mention your study limits and suggest some future research topics
In References, the sources are written in different styles. Please update the reference list. It is necessary to bring in accordance with the requirements of the magazine for the design of References. If possible, indicate DOI.
The literature can be expanded by studying some of these papers.

Predicting Marshall Flow and Marshall Stability of Asphalt Pavements Using Multi Expression Programming
Life cycle cost analysis comparison of hot mix asphalt and reclaimed asphalt pavement: A case study

Please use some innovative keywords.
Please mention your study limits in the abstract.
The Conclusions should reflect what the practical application of the results obtained in this study is. In what climatic conditions should the recommendations of the authors be taken into account?
The authors should increase their discussion on previous related research and highlight how their study is providing a different approach or adding significantly to what has been done. The authors have to explain what is the new here in comparison with the previous studies. The novelty of the current work should be highlighted in the introduction. Please try to mention a problem that needs solving - in other words, the research question underlying your study clearer.
The title of the manuscript should be revised.
Some types of standards should be used to perform different experimental studies. Please provide details for the standards used in each study.
Section 4 should be discussed in detail.
The authors must redo the Abstract and bring it in compliance with the requirements of the journal. The scientific problem is poorly described (Background). The scientific novelty is not indicated. I recommend shortening the Abstract to 200 words. Editors strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: Briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and (4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article
It is advisable to add a flowchart at the beginning of the paper. Then the article would become more visual and structured
Figure 6 can be replaced with column bar chart.
The economic aspects are also required for sustainability in social aspect. It is suggested to authors to evaluate the cost-benefit study of this as a further investigation
The conclusion should be an objective summary of the most important findings in response to the specific research question or hypothesis. A good conclusion states the principal topic, key arguments and counterpoint, and might suggest future research. It is important to understand the methodological robustness of your study design and report your findings accordingly. Please improve your conclusion section.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

C1: The English writing of the manuscript needs improvement. Therefore, it could benefit greatly from professional editing to improve technical writing and English.

R1: We apologize for these errors. We have checked the English writing in the whole paper and corrected accordingly.

C2: Please mention your study limits and suggest some future research topics

R2: It has been mentioned in the revised manuscript.

C3: References, the sources are written in different styles. Please update the reference list. It is necessary to bring in accordance with the requirements of the magazine for the design of References. If possible, indicate DOI.

R3: We apologize for these errors. We have checked the References and update the reference list according to journal requirements. Concerning DOI some papers and books don’t have DOI.

C4: The literature can be expanded by studying some of these papers.

(Predicting Marshall Flow and Marshall Stability of Asphalt Pavements Using Multi Expression Programming -- Life cycle cost analysis comparison of hot mix asphalt and reclaimed asphalt pavement: A case study)

R4: Thanks for your constructive comment. We expanded our research with the suggested paper.

C5: Please use some innovative keywords.

R5: Thanks for your query comment. We updated the keywoks.

C6: The Conclusions should reflect what the practical application of the results obtained in this study is. In what climatic conditions should the recommendations of the authors be taken into account?

R6: Thanks for your constructive comment. It has been enhanced in the revised manuscript.

C7: The authors should increase their discussion on previous related research and highlight how their study is providing a different approach or adding significantly to what has been done. The authors have to explain what is the new here in comparison with the previous studies. The novelty of the current work should be highlighted in the introduction. Please try to mention a problem that needs solving - in other words, the research question underlying your study clearer.

R7: Thanks for your query comment. it has been enhanced in the revised manuscript in introduction part.

C8: The title of the manuscript should be revised.

R8: Okay. It has been enhanced in the revised manuscript.

C9: Some types of standards should be used to perform different experimental studies. Please provide details for the standards used in each study.

R9: Okay. It has been adjusted in the revised manuscript.

C10: Section 4 should be discussed in detail.

R10: Okay. It has been added in the revised manuscript.

C11: The authors must redo the Abstract and bring it in compliance with the requirements of the journal. The scientific problem is poorly described (Background). The scientific novelty is not indicated. I recommend shortening the Abstract to 200 words. Editors strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: Briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and (4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article.

R11: Okay. It has been enhanced in the revised manuscript.

C12: It is advisable to add a flowchart at the beginning of the paper. Then the article would become more visual and structured.

R12: Okay. It has been added in the revised manuscript.

C13: Figure 6 can be replaced with column bar chart.

R13: Thanks for your comments. Figure 6 is equipment tests. Moreover all results are shown in column bar chart but figure 8 (sieve analysis difficult to be column bar chart).

C14: The economic aspects are also required for sustainability in social aspect. It is suggested to authors to evaluate the cost-benefit study of this as a further investigation.

R14: Thanks for your comments. We would like to illustrate that the research scope is about the effect of HMA gradation diffraction on its performance, the economic considerations due to the acceptation of some diffraction in HMA gradation need extensive future work and we have added a recommendation for this subject.

C15: The conclusion should be an objective summary of the most important findings in response to the specific research question or hypothesis. A good conclusion states the principal topic, key arguments and counterpoint, and might suggest future research. It is important to understand the methodological robustness of your study design and report your findings accordingly. Please improve your conclusion section.

R15: Okay, It has been enhanced in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find my reviews on your paper with the title "Evaluation of Aggregate Gradation Variation on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures".

line 32, "positive effect", does not fit the context; Instead I would write "performance", or similar!

Line 36 and 38; "uncertain factor" was repeated twice, the Authors can modify the second in only "factors" to avoid repetitions!

Line 39-40: "Therefore, researching the variability of construction parameters may be meaningful for asphalt mixture ", This sentence is vague and you might consider rephrasing it!

Line 52, what do the authors mean by construction variation (Bazi [9]) !? you may explain a little more to your readers how!

Line 65, 66 the sentence "To the author’s best knowledge, no study has been conducted to determine how far to deviate beyond the upper and lower specification limits of aggregate gradations to achieve an acceptable performance level for HMA mixtures." it's not accurate and the authors need to modify this! Many studies, best practices and standards suggest aggregate classification curves and limitations for asphalt mixtures.

Results and conclusion:

The authors should note that the variation of the bitumen content in the asphalt mixture can significantly change its performance! in fact, as can be seen from Table 4, the increase in the percentage of the bitumen content in M4, M5 and M6 with respect to M0(control sample), resulted in increase in stiffness and stability of the asphalt samples.The authors can find more information in the following reference:

(Mazzotta, F.; Tataranni, P.; Simone, A.; Fornai, D.; Airey, G.; Sangiorgi, C. Multi-Scale Rheo-Mechanical Study of SMA Mixtures Containing Fine Crumb Rubber in a New Dry-Hybrid Technology. Appl. Sci.2020, 10, 3887. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10113887).

Therefore, I strongly recommend that the authors control the variation of the bitumen content and to program further laboratory experimentation with different bitumen content to quantify the effect of the bitumen percentages and changes in aggregate grading curve together, or alternatively to find an already existing research methodology that considers the effect of the bitumen content using a multivariable or similar type of analysis.

best regards,

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

C1: line 32, "positive effect", does not fit the context; Instead I would write "performance", or similar!

R1: We apologize for these errors. We have corrected the error.

C2: Line 36 and 38; “uncertain factor" was repeated twice, the Authors can modify the second in only "factors" to avoid repetitions!

R2: It has been corrected in the revised manuscript.

C3: Line 39-40: "Therefore, researching the variability of construction parameters may be meaningful for asphalt mixture ", This sentence is vague and you might consider rephrasing it!

R3: Thanks for your correction. It has been updated in the revised manuscript.

C4: Line 52, what do the authors mean by construction variation (Bazi [9]) !? you may explain a little more to your readers how!

R4: It has been modified in the revised manuscript.

C5: Line 65, 66 the sentence "To the author’s best knowledge, no study has been conducted to determine how far to deviate beyond the upper and lower specification limits of aggregate gradations to achieve an acceptable performance level for HMA mixtures." it's not accurate and the authors need to modify this! Many studies, best practices and standards suggest aggregate classification curves and limitations for asphalt mixtures.

R5: Thanks for your constructive comment. It has been rephrased in the revised manuscript.

C6: The authors control the variation of the bitumen content and to program further laboratory experimentation with different bitumen content to quantify the effect of the bitumen percentages and changes in aggregate grading curve together, or alternatively to find an already existing research methodology that considers the effect of the bitumen content using a multivariable or similar type of analysis.

R6: Thanks for your query comment. We would like to illustrate that the research scope is about the effect of HMA gradation diffraction on its performance, the study of bitumen variation effect on the aggregate gradation diffraction need extensive future work and we have added a recommendation for this subject.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form

Article Menu

Printed Edition

Aggregate Gradation Variation on the Properties of Asphalt Mixtures

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI