The Effect of Ultraviolet Aging Duration on the Rheological Properties of Sasobit/SBS/Nano-TiO2-Modified Asphalt Binder
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the present study, authors performed rheological tests and adopted a viscoelastic mechanical 2S2P1D model to evaluate the resistance to UV aging of asphalt blend containing Sasobit, SBS and nano-titanium dioxide (TiO2). In general, this work is interesting, and could provide findings to the related readers. However, the following points as mentioned hereafter can be addressed by the authors to improve the quality of this research work:
1. In the introduction part, the latest literatures could be reviewed and referenced, and the reference list could be up-to-date accordingly.
2. In section 2.2.1, why the WAM binder was prepared at a high temperature like 150℃?
3. It is suggested that one figure for each raw material (Sasobit, TiO2, and PEG10000) be provided to have a better understanding.
4. The definition of black diagrams and TTS were missing.
5. The authors performed DSR tests and adopted 2S2P1D model to construct the master curves, and concluded that “the master curve is not very appropriate for evaluating the aging process”. Can this method be called “the proposed method”?
6. “The strength of UV aging is not enough”, is it possible due to the the UV aging parameters chosen?
7. Since the authors only used 0%, 1%, and 3% nano-TiO2, and this is not sufficient for a conclusion that “the nanoparticles showed insignificant effects on the complex modulus of asphalt binder at different temperatures”.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers,
Thanks for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled “Effect of Ultraviolet Aging Duration on Rheological Properties of Sasobit / SBS/ Nano-TiO2 Modified Asphalt Binder”. Those comments are not only valuable guidance for revising and improving our paper but also an important reference to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and made revisions in response to all comments, hoping to meet the approval requirements. Revised portions are marked in red in the revised paper. The major corrections in the paper and responses to the reviewers’ comments are summarized as follows:
Response to the reviewers’ comments:
In the present study, authors performed rheological tests and adopted a viscoelastic mechanical 2S2P1D model to evaluate the resistance to UV aging of asphalt blend containing Sasobit, SBS and nano-titanium dioxide (TiO2). In general, this work is interesting, and could provide findings to the related readers. However, the following points as mentioned hereafter can be addressed by the authors to improve the quality of this research work:
1. In the introduction part, the latest literatures could be reviewed and referenced, and the reference list could be up-to-date accordingly.
+ Thanks for your advice. The reference has been revised and marked in red.
2. In section 2.2.1, why the WAM binder was prepared at a high temperature like 150℃?
+ The preparation process of test materials was the same as that in Yang et al (Yang et al. 2018).
+ Warm Mix Asphalt is produced and mixed at temperatures roughly between 100 and 150 °C. Hot Mix Asphalt is produced and mixed at temperatures roughly between 120 and 190 °C. The production temperatures of Hot Mix Asphalt depend on the bitumen used.
Yang, S., K. Yan, B. He, W. He, D. Wang and H. Wang, 2018. Ultraviolet and pav aging procedures influence on rheological characteristics of Sasobit/SBS modified binder containing titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Petrol Sci Technol.
3. It is suggested that one figure for each raw material (Sasobit, TiO2, and PEG10000) be provided to have a better understanding.
+ Each raw material for this article is referenced to Yang et al (Yang et al., 2018).
4. The definition of black diagrams and TTS were missing.
+ The black diagrams were defined in Line247-249, and the definition of TTS was added in Line85-87.
5. The authors performed DSR tests and adopted 2S2P1D model to construct the master curves, and concluded that “the master curve is not very appropriate for evaluating the aging process”. Can this method be called “the proposed method”?
+ Thank you for your advice. “The proposed method” was replaced by “the adopted method” in the article.
Second, the master curve can judge whether the time temperature equivalent property is true and can also analyze the viscoelastic solid or liquid mechanical properties of materials. Therefore, the sentence “the master curve is not very appropriate for evaluating the aging process” is not very appropriate in the article.
6. “The strength of UV aging is not enough”, is it possible due to the UV aging parameters chosen?
+ The chosen of UV aging parameters may be influence the assessment the property.
7. Since the authors only used 0%, 1%, and 3% nano-TiO2, and this is not sufficient for a conclusion that “the nanoparticles showed insignificant effects on the complex modulus of asphalt binder at different temperatures”.
+ Thanks for your advice. The contents of nano-titanium dioxide affected the property of warm-asphalt binder in this article was deleted.
We have tried our best to improve the manuscript.
We really hope that the corrections will meet with your approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Kezhen Yan
Department of Civil Engineering,
Hunan University
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Effect of Ultraviolet Aging Times on Rheological Properties of 2Sasobit and SBS Compound Modified Asphalt Binder Con- 3taining Nano-Titanium Dioxide
Title:
· It could be more concise/compact.
Abstract
· The authors are recommended to give the basic findings in a quantitative manner.
introduction
· Literature review should be extended.
· The research objectives the problem statement are not clear
Methodology
· The authors should rethink about the display method of the testing procedure, it is traditional
Results and Discussion:
· The authors should discuss their findings with the results of other papers already available in the literature. Most of the discussion is general speaking
Conclusion:
· The authors should give their findings in a quantitative manner.
· A recommendations to the practitioners should be added. Also a limitation of the current study should be highlighted.
Author Response
Title:
It could be more concise/compact.
+ the title was compacted and marked in red in the article.
Abstract
The authors are recommended to give the basic findings in a quantitative manner.
+ The important model parameter was added in the abstract.
Introduction
Literature review should be extended. The research objectives the problem statement is not clear
+ Literature review was extended. The research objectives in the problem statement was revised and marked red.
Methodology
The authors should rethink about the display method of the testing procedure, it is traditional
+ Thanks for your advice. The display method of the testing procedure will be examined in further study.
Results and Discussion:
The authors should discuss their findings with the results of other papers already available in the literature. Most of the discussion is general speaking
+ The writings on findings were improved, and some discussions were revised in the article and marked red.
Conclusion:
The authors should give their findings in a quantitative manner. A recommendation to the practitioners should be added. Also, a limitation of the current study should be highlighted.
+ The k and h values, as model parameters, were added in conclusion, and the limitation of the current study was also added in the article
Reviewer 3 Report
The study is very interesting and relevant. Kindly pay attention to the following issues:
1. The title is verbose. Consider replacing "times" with "duration", as well as delete "compound"
2. There are several spelling errors, incomplete sentences and unclear sentence constructions that considerably impact readability and understandability. The paper will benefit from an editorial review
3. It is easier for readers to follow the work if tables and figures are introduced before their appearance. For example, Figures 1, 5 and 6 need introduction.
4. Line 104 on Page 2 mentions polyethylene glycol as binder modifier used in the study, but, after this place, the modifier is not mentioned again. This needs clarification.
5. In Figures 3 and 4, the data corresponding to UV aging for 6 days is referenced to Yang et al. 2018. However, the data for UV aging for 6 days in Figure 6 is not referenced.
6. On Line 252, Page 9, the acronym NTOWS appears for the first time without definition.
7. Reference 13 is not complete.
Author Response
The study is very interesting and relevant. Kindly pay attention to the following issues:
1. The title is verbose. Consider replacing "times" with "duration", as well as delete "compound"
+ Thanks for your advice. The title has been corrected based on your suggestion.
2. There are several spelling errors, incomplete sentences and unclear sentence constructions that considerably impact readability and understandability. The paper will benefit from an editorial review
+ The author has made repeated revisions to the full text.
3. It is easier for readers to follow the work if tables and figures are introduced before their appearance. For example, Figures 1, 5 and 6 need introduction.
+ The introduction of Figures 1, 5 and 6 was added in the article and marked in red.
4. Line 104 on Page 2 mentions polyethylene glycol as binder modifier used in the study, but, after this place, the modifier is not mentioned again. This needs clarification.
+ Thank you for pointing this out. Polyethylene glycol acted a dispersing agent can improve the dispersibility of nanoparticles. The reference was added in the article.
Reference: Yang Q, Liu Yi, 2011. Dispersion and re-aging properties of asphalt modified with tio2. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 39(2): 263–265.
5. In Figures 3 and 4, the data corresponding to UV aging for 6 days is referenced to Yang et al. 2018. However, the data for UV aging for 6 days in Figure 6 is not referenced.
+ Yang et al (Yang et al. 2018) conducted the frequency sweep test only at 58 ℃, while the maximum test temperature was 46℃ in this article.
6. On Line 252, Page 9, the acronym NTOWS appears for the first time without definition.
+ I am sorry to make such a mistake. The acronym NTOWS in the article has been deleted.
7. Reference 13 is not complete.
+ Reference 13 has been updated.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed my problems, and it is recommended to be accepted.
Author Response
The authors addressed my problems, and it is recommended to be accepted.
+Thanks for recommendation.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors should shorten the paper and make it more simple for the readers.
The authors did not address most of the comments in a proper way.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your comments on our manuscript entitled “Effect of Ultraviolet Aging Duration on Rheological Properties of Sasobit / SBS/ Nano-TiO2 Modified Asphalt Binder”. Those comments are not only valuable guidance for revising and improving our paper but also an important reference to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and made revisions in response to all comments, hoping to meet the approval requirements. Revised portions are marked in red in the revised paper. The major corrections in the paper and responses to the reviewers’ comments are summarized as follows:
1.The authors should shorten the paper and make it more simple for the readers.
+Thanks for your advice. First, the introduction and conclusion were shortened in the article. Second, the evaluation indexes corresponded tests was obtained through revised the fig1.
2. The authors did not address most of the comments in a proper way.
+The authors are very sorry to hear that. First of all, the authors conducted a comprehensive inspection of the reviewers' comments about Review Report (round 1). In addition, relevant comments have been revised repeatedly and carefully and marked in red in the article.
We have tried our best to improve the manuscript.
We really hope that the corrections will meet with your approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely yours.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
