Effect of Fine Aggregates and Mineral Fillers on the Permanent Deformation of Hot Mix Asphalt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

Thank you for your efforts, the received article refers to the use of soft materials as filler in asphalt mixture, although the efforts for the experiments are appreciated, there are many problems, and rewriting and basic corrections are needed. Some of them are:

 - The title of the article is very general, and at first, it seems repetitive, the title should be more specialized and corrected.

- The scope of the journal is in the field of environment, but the application of the results of this study in the field of sustainable environment is not mentioned in the text of the article, please refer to the topic.

- Is there no well-known method and standard for the shear resistance of asphalt (AASHTO TP 114-17 “)that has been used to test the shear resistance of fine-grained soils? And whether a 5 cm mold is suitable for pavement aggregates that have large dimensions, should be explained.

- Line 23, page 3, what does the word "POC" stand for?

-Compare the grading charts in Figures 3 to 5 to make a better comparison between different materials.

- The characteristic of the "surkhi" material used in this study is mostly due to its special physical or mechanical properties and not the location of its preparation, why were these materials chosen?

- Because the specifications of asphalt (Flow Number) are important, these specifications should be added in Table 4.

- Line 248, page 10, the unit cannot be kg, please correct it.

- The graphs of a-d in Figure 7 should be aligned so that comparison can be made more easily.

- In the last part of the article (before the conclusion), there is no discussion and reasoning about the reason for these changes in the asphalt specifications, please provide more discussion and reasons.

- In the reference section at the end of the article, the full names of the authors should be given, adding the word "et.al. "it's not correct.

- In general, both the amount and number of data and reviews are small, and the discussion on the results is small. If more tests can be used, the quality and chances of this article will increase.

Sincerely

The text is suitable in terms of English writing and may need a little revision in terms of correcting minor mistakes.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for sending us a detailed review of our manuscript. We have finished re-arranging our manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestion. The corrections/addition have been made in the revised version of the paper. We are thankful to the reviewers for their effort in reviewing our manuscript and suggesting improvements for publication. These suggestions/recommendations would surely help us alot for our current and future research.  Point wise response to the reviewer’s recommendations is tabulated as under:

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the researchers presented new findings in asphaltic concrete improvement by inclusion of fine aggregate and mineral fillers. Following are some comments 

1. Optimal binder contents need to be rounded to the nearest decimal. It will be hard to implement these binder dosages in field to two decimal accuracy.

2. What are the challenges faced in field conditions in using these binders

3. Tables and figures need to be presented for Journal standards. Please use professional software like Grapher to plot figures.

4. Conclusion section need a revisit with better writeup. Industrial waste is shown as the best modifier and this material is highly irregulated. How do the authors plan to control this material property for field applications?

Some editorial corrections:

Line 19

 

 Entire manuscript needs to be proof read by an English language professional.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for sending us a detailed review of our manuscript. We have finished re-arranging our manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestion. The corrections/addition have been made in the revised version of the paper. We are thankful to the reviewers for their effort in reviewing our manuscript and suggesting improvements for publication. These suggestions/recommendations would surely help us alot for our current and future research.  Point wise response to the reviewer’s recommendations is tabulated as under

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

the authors of the article under review investigate the properties of asphalt containing as a filler surkhi, natural sand, cinder and conventional stone dust. Some moments should be improved:

1.       In part research methodology it is said that 60 mixtures were prepared, but there is no any data about them, even range of fillers content

2.       The same part (line 198): «The third phase involved the testing of 12 specimens for rut resistance using a wheel tracking machine.» It was not clear where information about these 12 samples is

3.       On the figure 2 selected blend in overlapped by other curves

4.       Figures 3-5 looks very similar, especially in the range of the hydrometer analysis, and it is not clear is there any differences between samples. Also some comments to these figures should be given

5.       Table 4 and figure 6 contain the same information, there is no need to repeat it

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for sending us a detailed review of our manuscript. We have finished re-arranging our manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestion. The corrections/addition have been made in the revised version of the paper. We are thankful to the reviewers for their effort in reviewing our manuscript and suggesting improvements for publication. These suggestions/recommendations would surely help us alot for our current and future research.  Point wise response to the reviewer’s recommendations is tabulated as under

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

I have to thank you for your efforts in editing the article.

Regards.

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you very much again for sending me a minor review to improve the quality of my paper. I have finished re-arranging my paper according to reviewer’s suggestion. The corrections/addition have been made in the revised version of the paper. We are thankful to the reviewers for their effort in reviewing our manuscript again and suggesting improvements for publication. These suggestions/recommendations would surely help us a lot for our current and future research. Point wise response to the reviewer’s recommendations is tabulated as under:

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Some minor comments:

1. Figure 6 needs revision. Poor presentation. Please use grapher or other professional software.

2. Table 3 needs revision.

 

 Please have the paper proofread and edited. (e.g. Line 20 "..")

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you very much again for sending me a minor review to improve the quality of my paper. I have finished re-arranging my paper according to reviewer’s suggestion. The corrections/addition have been made in the revised version of the paper. We are thankful to the reviewers for their effort in reviewing our manuscript again and suggesting improvements for publication. These suggestions/recommendations would surely help us a lot for our current and future research. Point wise response to the reviewer’s recommendations is tabulated as under:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf