Study on Thixotropic Properties of Asphalt Mastics Based on Energy Viewpoint

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the thixotropy of 12 types of asphalt mastics fabricated with asphalt, as well as different 16 types of mineral filler are examined. Moreover, the filler/asphalt ratio is examined via the hysteresis technique to analyze the hysteresis loop and the viscosity-shear rate. This research falls within the scope of the Journal. However, after reading carefully the manuscript, I agree to its publication in condition to Major Revision. Despite considerable works made in this study, I believe this paper lacks in: (1) literature review, (2) novelty, (3) methodology and (4) results discussion. Specific reasons are stated in the following:

1. The literature review needs to be enhanced to show the limitations of the previous studies.

2. The novelty and necessity of this paper are questionable. They should be clearly presented in the last paragraph of introduction section of the revised paper.

3. In the reference list of this study, there is no sign of any reference published in 2022. It is suggested that the relevant studies published in 2022 be cited in the revised paper.

4. In an academic text, some explanations should be provided below each title and sub-title. Please add some explanations under all titles and sub-titles to briefly describe the content of the title and sub-title (For instance, Page 3, 2. Experimental).

5. Some pictures of the asphalt binders and mineral fillers used in this study should be added to the revised paper.

6. Some pictures of asphalt mastic samples and test specimens fabricated in this study should be added to the revised paper.

7. Some views of the devices used in the mechanical testing and also, test procedures should be added in the revised paper.

8. The particle size distributions of different materials used in this study should be presented in the revised paper.

9. More discussions should be added to the revised paper to elaborate the results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your good comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and modified the manuscript accordingly. We hope they can meet your approval. The detailed corrections are listed as following.

1. The literature review needs to be enhanced to show the limitations of the previous studies.

Response: Thanks. We added 8 literatures to enhance the previous studies.

2. The novelty and necessity of this paper are questionable. They should be clearly presented in the last paragraph of introduction section of the revised paper.

Response: Thanks.

3. In the reference list of this study, there is no sign of any reference published in 2022. It is suggested that the relevant studies published in 2022 be cited in the revised paper.

Response: Thanks. In the revised paper, we added 8 more reference published in 2022 and 2011 in the revise paper.

4. In an academic text, some explanations should be provided below each title and sub-title. Please add some explanations under all titles and sub-titles to briefly describe the content of the title and sub-title (For instance, Page 3, 2. Experimental).

Response: Thanks.

5. Some pictures of the asphalt binders and mineral fillers used in this study should be added to the revised paper.

Response: Thanks.

6. Some pictures of asphalt mastic samples and test specimens fabricated in this study should be added to the revised paper.

Response: Thanks. Fabrication of asphalt mastic and the size of test specimens were described in the revised paper.

7. Some views of the devices used in the mechanical testing and also, test procedures should be added in the revised paper.

Response: Thanks. The device used in the mechanical testing was added to the manuscript as Figure1, and the test procedures which described as the relation of frequency and strain were added as Figure2.

8. The particle size distributions of different materials used in this study should be presented in the revised paper.

Response: Thanks. In this study, the fineness of mineral filler was described with the average particle size. As there is not any discussion about the particle size on the thixotropy of asphalt, we think there is no need to add the particle size distributions of different fillers.

9. More discussions should be added to the revised paper to elaborate the results.

Response: Thanks. The discussion and the conclusion were revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper aims to investigate the behaviour of asphalt mastic.

The paper requires some changes before of a possible publication.

Some comments:

1) The authors have to improve the abstract, focusing on the object of the research work done. 

2) The authors have to introduce some photos of the experimental test and experimental device. Also a picture of dimensions of specimens.

3) The reviewer suggests to introduce a picture of the load vs time applied in the experimental investigation.

4) For the reviewer opinion, the eq.1 can be deleted. 

5) The authors have improve the quality of page 13, in particular the format of formula in the text.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your good comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and modified the manuscript accordingly. We hope they can meet your approval. The detailed corrections are listed as following.

1) The authors have to improve the abstract, focusing on the object of the research work done.

Response: Thanks. The abstract was improved and the object of the research underlined was reinforced.

2) The authors have to introduce some photos of the experimental test and experimental device. Also a picture of dimensions of specimens.

Response: Thanks. The photos of the experimental test and experimental device were added. And the dimensions of specimens was described in the manuscript.

3) The reviewer suggests to introduce a picture of the load vs time applied in the experimental investigation.

Response: Thanks. A picture of the load vs time was added in the manuscript.

4) For the reviewer opinion, the eq.1 can be deleted.

Response: Thanks.

5) The authors have improve the quality of page 13, in particular the format of formula in the text.

Response: Thanks.  The quality of page 13 was improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

you present a well-written manuscript on the thixotropic properties of asphalt mastics, based on energy viewpoint. It is suitable for this journal but it needs a  moderate revision before its publication:

Table 2:  replace "mineral composition" with "chemical composition".

 Section 3: Please replace the  "analysis" with "discussion" of title in Section 3

Line 341:  Rewritte the phrase "As the mineral ...  structure" since mineral means that it is a crystal with specipic -stable composition and  lattice, instead of  the amorphous phase (not structure). Are you sure that this micro mass is amorphous or it is microcrystalline to cryptocrystalline? A further characterization in this study of mineralogical and microstructural features of fillers  lacks (e.g XRD, SEM). Moreover a such characterization could be enrich your discussion and the schematic model of Figure 9 as well as the explanation of thixotropic mechanism: Beyond the agglomeration of particles how do you know that your filler does not contain some micro to nano minerals with  phylosilicate structure  which can affect further the thixotropy ? please refer something or explain. 

Conclusions: Re writte in a more brief paragraph according to your basic results.

Good luck 

Kind regards

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your good comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and modified the manuscript accordingly. We hope they can meet your approval. The detailed corrections are listed as following.

Table 2: replace "mineral composition" with "chemical composition".

Response: Thanks. It was replaced in the manuscript.

 Section 3: Please replace the "analysis" with "discussion" of title in Section 3

Response: Thanks. It was replaced in the manuscript.

Line 341:  Rewritte the phrase "As the mineral ...  structure" since mineral means that it is a crystal with specipic -stable composition and  lattice, instead of  the amorphous phase (not structure). Are you sure that this micro mass is amorphous or it is microcrystalline to cryptocrystalline? A further characterization in this study of mineralogical and microstructural features of fillers  lacks (e.g XRD, SEM). Moreover a such characterization could be enrich your discussion and the schematic model of Figure 9 as well as the explanation of thixotropic mechanism: Beyond the agglomeration of particles how do you know that your filler does not contain some micro to nano minerals with phylosilicate structure  which can affect further the thixotropy ? please refer something or explain.

Response: Thanks. The phrase was rewritted as “ Even the mineral particles are crystal with specific -stable composition and lattice, the surface was covered with asphalt binders, these asphalt-covered particles could be regarded as an amorphous structure with a small diameter and a large specific surface area, they can combine with each other through hydrogen bonding on the surface to form particle clusters, making the particles agglomerate together.” in the manuscript.

In the future study, we may further characterize the mineralogical and microstructural features of fillers in asphalt binder with SEM and XRD to make an in-depth explanation of the thixotropy asphalt mastic. Thank you for your valuable advice.

Conclusions: Rewritte in a more brief paragraph according to your basic results.

Response: Thanks. The conclusion was simplified in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Some comments were properly addressed. However, there are still some minor points need to be addressed:

1. In an academic text, some explanations should be provided below each title and sub-title. Please add some explanations under all titles and sub-titles to briefly describe the content of the title and sub-title (For instance, Page 3, 2. Experimental).

2. Some pictures of the asphalt binders and mineral fillers used in this study should be added to the revised paper.

3. Some pictures of asphalt mastic samples and test specimens fabricated in this study should be added to the revised paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your good comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and modified the manuscript accordingly. We hope they can meet your approval. The detailed corrections are listed as following.

1. In an academic text, some explanations should be provided below each title and sub-title. Please add some explanations under all titles and sub-titles to briefly describe the content of the title and sub-title (For instance, Page 3, 2. Experimental).

Response: Thanks.

2. Some pictures of the asphalt binders and mineral fillers used in this study should be added to the revised paper.

Response: Thanks. In this paper, we selected the ordinary petroleum asphalt binders and the properties of them are listed in Table1.

3. Some pictures of asphalt mastic samples and test specimens fabricated in this study should be added to the revised paper.

Response: Thanks. The test specimens fabrication was described in the manuscript as Line 136~140.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper after changes can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors ,

in my opinion your revised manuscript can be published in present form.

Please replace the legend of Table 2  with the new one:"Physicochemical properties"

Kind regards

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review. We have revised all.