Evaluating the Effect of Curing Time and Resting Time on Moisture Damage Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures Using the Pull-Off Tensile Strength (POTS) Test

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper present method for evaluating the moisture damage of asphalt mixture using direct tension test. few areas that needs more clarity.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. Please find the attached the responses and revised manucript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented an manuscript that need further development to be considered for publication.

The following points should be addressed:

1) The sample size seems to low to have significant conclusions or results for establishing a new method for testing moisture damage. Especially repeatablity and uncertainty should be discussed and included in figures and tables.

2) The manuscript has several severe mistakes, like increasing viscosity with heating, wrongly referencing fiugres or numbers within the text do not match numbers in figures.

3) The discussion should not repeat tables or figures but should discuss the content and its relative importance to this and other research.

4) The latest work on moisture damage should be included in the introduction and the gap in knowledge should be clearly identified.

5) A liniear relationship with 3 points and only one material with different modification is not sufficient to prove a method or show correlation.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. Please find attached the responses and revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The POTS experiment in the manuscript is to determine the bonding capacity of the material on the surface of the asphalt mixture. And the asphalt mixture resistance to water damage generally refers to the ability of the mixture to resist external forces without cracking after water intrusion inside the asphalt mixture, which depends to a large extent on the bonding ability of the interface between asphalt and aggregate before the asphalt mixture inside the asphalt mixture. For example, asphalt and aggregate interface bonding ability is strong, and water damage generally presents cohesive damage. So as far as resistance to water damage is concerned, the article does not proceed correctly. The POTS experiments of the manuscript can be considered as studying the water damage resistance of asphalt pavement adhesive layers.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. Please find attached the responses and revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this study, the pull off tensile strength test was conducted to study the moisture damage resistance of asphalt mixtures. The curing time and resting time were also investigated. The experimental results were compared to other results such as TSR. In general, this is a very interesting study. However, there are some problems which the authors should look into.

1. The literature review should include more recent studies on moisture damage of asphalt mixtures. For example, the surface energy of both asphalt and aggregate can be measured and utilized to analyze the moisture resistance of asphalt-aggregate combinations. ("Moisture damage mechanism and material selection of HMA with amine antistripping agent. Materials & Design, 220, p.110797.")

2. This paper is also related to the effect of aging on the moisture resistance. Recent published papers should be reviewed to describe the moisture damage mechanism and thermodynamic properties of asphalt under aging conditions.

3. The knowledge gap should be described and the innovation of this study should be emphasized.

4. More indepth discussions should be made on the influence of carbon black, curing time and resting time instead of purely describing the experimental results.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. Please find attached the responses and revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is necessary for the author to provide the testing specifications for the tests conducted.

There is a lack of clarity in the paper regarding test parameters and limitations 

It is necessary to perform static calculations in order to validate the results' reliability  

It is not suitable for publishing due to its language and format

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have made revisions to Section 2.3.2 to include the specified standard, as suggested. Additionally, we have rewritten the results and discussion section to incorporate your comments. Please find the revised manuscript attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the manuscript so a certain extend. However, the manuscript still has some significant shortcomings, which require an indepth analysis of the results and comparision to previous work and adequate referencing. An extension of the experimental work should be truly be considered to show the correlation and correlation limits, in addition to some unreferenced statements moisture damage behaviour.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have made revisions to some unreferenced in introduction, as suggested. Additionally, we have rewritten the results and discussion section to incorporate your comments. Please find the revised manuscript attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the revisions and explanations made by the authors, the revised version of the manuscript meets the publication requirements   of sustainability journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We made an effort to enhance the manuscript for publication purposes. Please find the revised manuscript attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper has been revised based on the comment and should be ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We made an effort to enhance the manuscript for publication purposes. Please find the revised manuscript attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Regardless of the language used in this article, what is the article's contribution? The author has not responded. This article does not have any significance, the moisture damage to asphalt mixtures has been well discussed in many publications.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have tried revised the manuscript to be more concise and coherent. 

The significance of this research is to provide a development method which is the challenges associated with replicating field conditions in a laboratory setting for the testing of moisture susceptibility in asphalt mixtures. The introduction  outlines the different types of tests available and their strengths and weaknesses. It highlights the importance of the Binder Bond Strength (BBS) test in evaluating the impact of water on both cohesive and adhesive failure types and its potential to provide a better understanding of the moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixtures. Finally, the development of the Pull-off Tensile Strength (POTS) test, which utilizes the same fundamental principle as the Binder Bond Strength (BBS) test, requires careful consideration of several factors.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript so that it is appropriate for considering publication. The work still is very limited and it would be better from an scientific focus to carry out an extensive investigation to determine relationship between ITS and POT with several different binders and modifications.

Two issues should be address before publication:

The methodology on sample preparation, preparation conditions and testing should be precisely described, as it is still not entirely clear.

The material relevant information should be placed in the material section, as indicated in line 206.

 

Author Response

Many thanks for your feedback. Kindly refer to the updated manuscript, where we have incorporated your latest comments. 

The findings of future research can be improved based on your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf