A Comparative Study for Creep and Recovery Behavior Characterization of Modified Bitumens Using the MSCR Test

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer Comments:
The topic is interesting and important. However, there are several key areas that need more work prior to publication. I have summarized the required changes in the hope that the feedback will be useful to you as you update the paper.

1- The authors should ask for the help of a native English-speaking proofreader (or review again)because there are some typos and linguistic mistakes that should be fixed.
2- The introduction is poorly written and it does not properly refer to previously published studies. The authors need to carefully review the published literature, identify the gaps in the literature, and propose their approach to fill the gap.
3- It is important to add some recent and international work (2022-2023) to the literature review. At least 6 new references should be added to the article.
4- A flowchart should be added to the article to show the research methodology.
5- All symbols and parameters should be defined, please check.
6- Much more explanations and interpretations should be added for the result, which is not enough.
7- It is suggested to compare the results of the present study with previous studies and analyze their results completely.
8- The manuscript does not follow the format requested by the Journal; it should be improved.

9-For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in the abstract and introduction.

Other comments:

-Figure 10 does not appear

-Error! Reference source not found-- appear all text. Please fix this format problem. In addition, the Figures must go with the line of text

 

-please, delete the objetives title. A logical sequence must be made from the introduction. The last paragraph of the introduction should be a description of the objective of the study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The authors should ask for the help of a native English-speaking proofreader (or review again) because there are some typos and linguistic mistakes that should be fixed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewing Manuscript coatings-2545687

 

A Comparative Study for Creep and Recover Behavior Characterization of Modified Bitumens using the MSCR Test

 

Referee Comments:

 

1. Amend the following messages on pages 2, 3, and 4 (twice), etc.: “Error! Reference source not found..”

 

This is in part related to all the figures since they do not appear in the text.

 

 

2. Equations in lines 134, 135, and 155 should be aligned and use the same font size as the text.

 

3. All seven elastomeric-modified bitumens, five non-elastomeric modified bitumens, and three plain bitumens should be shown in SEM micrographs to observe particle sizes and mixture homogeneity. Also, EDX chemical mapping or backscattering electron micrographs can show such element distribution. This kind of characterization should pursue to show the polymer's distribution. Particularly useful is to show them previous and posterior to the tests, especially those of 82 °C which have lower recovery.

 

4. The calorimetric analyses DSC/TGA of the bitumen and its mixtures could add value to their thermal behavior of them. In the case of 82 °C it is clear a diminishment of the elasticity of the bitumen admixtures.

5. Is there any water percentage content in the admixtures?

6. Explain what happens in the de-aggregation point at 76 °C of SBS.

7. Table 1 and section 3.1.2. are similar to a previously published work by the authors. It is recommended some specific adjustments particular to this work.

“3.1.2. Bitumen modification and preparation 96

All modified bitumens used in this study were laboratory prepared by mixing the 97 plain bitumen with the appropriate modifier. However, the specific mixing processes var-98 ied, depending on the type of the modifier used. To prepare EVA, PPA and rock bitumen 99 modified bitumens, plain bitumen was first heated to 160℃ and the desired modifiers 100 were added to the hot bitumen. Then, the blend was sheared for 20 min (4000 rpm) and 101 then stirred for 60 min (800 rpm). 102

The SBS modified bitumen (SBSMB) and crumb rubber modified bitumen were pre-103 pared differently. The preparation temperature was raised to 180℃ and the shearing stage 104 was extended to 120 min to ensure better swelling and homogeneity.”

 

[Ref] Chuanqi Yan, Linxin Yuan, Xiaotao Yu, Shuzhen Ji, Zhengfeng Zhou. Characterizing the fatigue resistance of multiple modified asphalts using time sweep test, LAS test and elastic recovery test. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 322, (2022), 125806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125806.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This reviewer does not recommend this work for publication in its current form. Overall, this reviewer suggests enhancing the following remarks and suggestions:

 

1) The scientific merit and novelty of the article are not clear. The authors should explain clearly in the abstract what is the novelty of the proposed method and what is the added value in this article?
2) What is the motivation of the work? The problem considered does not have a sound motivation. The authors should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the objectives and results.

3) The basic assumptions for the theoretical model also not enlisted in details.

4) Authors are encouraged to discuss the possibility to use FEM by discussing the following works: [(a) – Mesbah et al. (2023), “Formulation and evaluation a finite element model for free vibration and buckling behaviours of functionally graded porous (FGP) beams”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 86(3), 291-309.; (b) - Katiyar et al. (2022), “Microstructural/geometric imperfection sensitivity on the vibration response of geometrically discontinuous bi-directional functionally graded plates (2D-FGPs) with partial supports by using FEM”, Steel and Composite Structures, 45(5), 621-640.].

5) Figs. 6 and 7 should be more discussed.

6) Authors should add some physical explanation to improve the quality of the paper. Conclusion section must be extended in a few words via main finding and advantages of the methodology.

The Quality of English is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf