Deterioration Models for Bridge Pavement Materials for a Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents a life cycle cost analysis of pavements in Korea.
The topic of the article and the cycle of analysis conducted are interesting and worthy of attention.
The language style of the article should be improved, for example, there are many places /sentences/paragraphs where the same phrases are repeated excessively. Such a situation occurs, for instance, in the sentences written in lines 104-110 (deterioration model), or in lines 58-61 (this study).
The manner in which the classes of materials for analysis were selected requires attention and additional description. There is a comparison of concrete, asphalt and latex-modified concrete. Natural seems to be the relationship between durability and strength class of the materials used. In the reviewer's opinion, the presented article does not sufficiently explain this relationship.
With best regards,
Reviewer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is focused on degradation models to predict the long-term behavior of bridge pavements. The topic is very interesting and relevant to the aims and scopes of the Journal. Nevertheless, the scholarly contribution of the study described in the manuscript is minimal in terms of journal publication. Besides, I have found it very difficult to follow the paper. Therefore, I suggest that the author reformulate the paper by describing clearly the novelties and the main aspects of the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the manuscript title “Deterioration Models by Bridge Pavement Materials for Life Cycle Cost Analysis”. In this manuscript, the authors developed deterioration models for bridge pavement. In my opinion, the research objective is clear. The content structure is basically reasonable. And the experimental results are seemingly acceptable which can support the feasibility of the methods.
However, there are several points which should be addressed to improve the quality of the paper.
1. In abstract, please use the correct tense and reduce the use of complicated and difficult sentence patterns. It is suggested to revise the grammar and presentation questions in the whole manuscript.
2. Literature research is a little less, not sufficient and not in-depth. First of all, it is necessary to conduct a horizontal comparative analysis of the work of the predecessors, and secondly, it is necessary to elicit the follow-up research content on the basis of a full understanding of the research status.
3. How many iterations in Figure 1 before the function converges?
4. Is it possible to determine the optimal maintenance time after deriving the degradation curve, and are there any relevant engineering applications?
5. Are the results of the article generalisable? It may be inappropriate to consider bridge pavements in three simple categories.
6. what criteria are used to calculate the road condition and the exact calculation method should be based on the description.
7. The amount of concrete and LMC pavement data is too small and may lead to inaccurate calculations, which in turn may lead to large errors in predicting service life.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This article aimed to develop the deterioration models for bridge pavement subject to frequent maintenance among bridges. This research used the Bayesian Markov Hazard Model to analyze the diagnostic data collected in Korea over the previous 12 years. This articles some revisions before it can be accepted for publication.
1. Abstract: The authors followed the MDPI journal format to write the abstract. However, I suggest to remove the words “Background”, “Methods”, “Results” and “Conclusions”.
2. Line 22, Line 96; Acronyms “LMC” “BHM” should be defined when used first.
3. In many locations page numbers “(p.1)”is also mentioned while citing the article, I suggest removing the page numbers. For example “Line 37, 43, 45, 51, 69, 78, 80, 85, 88, 94, 119, 131, 133”.
4. The discussion about the existing models, advantages and disadvantages is shallow in the literatures section. It may discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing models and why the current model is required?
5. Table 1, how does the pavement conditions were selected?
6. Mention the assumption made in the BMH model.
7. Chapter 4 can be changed to conclusions.
8. Compared to 3→4 grade transition probability, concrete pavement 401 (0.068) is lower than asphalt pavement (0.173) by more than 2.5 times and LMC (0.275) by 402 more than 4 times, respectively. Mention the reason for this behaviour.
9. How does the accuracy of the BMH model is ensured?
10. Other sections of the article are discussed clearly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
1. Abstract. What does LMC pavement means? I suggest author use the full name of the material when it first appears.
2. Table 1. Authors mentioned “Pavement defect rate”, how do you define it? Is it the proportion of pavement damage in area of the pavement? In addition, what the relationship between the three columns? I think these columns should have a label.
2.3. Data collection and processing. It is unclear how many bridges are selected as the study objectives. I understand the data were collected by using Bridge Management System, but I suggest authors provide more details since the data source is critical for this work.
3. This work predicted the life expectancy of three type of bridge pavement, and the conclusion is clear, in which the concrete is the best. I agree with this conclusion, and I think this conclusion was previously reported in many publications. The contribution of this work is to reveal this fact in Korea. Regardless, I suggest the author prove the validity of this conclusion through an engineering case.
4. I wonder if it possible for authors to compare the results obtained by another prediction model and see if this conclusion still solid. From my side, the conduct analysis is somehow weak.
5. I think the author overemphasizes the prediction model used and ignores the discussion on the consistency of the prediction results with the facts in Korea.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article analyses the durability of bridge sidewalks made of concrete, asphalt and latex-modified concrete.
In the first review, it was pointed out that the basis of durability is not the pavement material itself, but primarily its composition, strength and physical parameters (tightness, etc.). Therefore, in the reviewer's opinion, it is unreasonable to categorize pavement durability in terms of the material variable (concrete, asphalt, modified concrete) without considering and describing the characteristics and parameters of these materials. It may be that the data analysed assumed the constancy of the characteristics of the different types of materials, but if they were not rigorously described in the research, the research itself has little impact on the state of knowledge in the topic under review. Explaining further, for example, analyzing only concrete pavements made of material of compressive strength class C10 and C50, they will have incomparable durability under identical service loads.
In conclusion, in the reviewer's opinion, the deterioration model which subdivides pavement materials into asphalt, conventional concrete, and latex-modified concrete with no further data of material parameters possibly may be important locally, in the author's country, but does not contribute to the state of knowledge in the analyzed topic in the global scope.
With the above in mind, in the reviewer's opinion, the article should not be published in Sustainability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have improved the quality of the paper which can now be considered for pubblication
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been improved to a certain extent after the author's revision, but there are still some problems:
The criteria for calculating the bridge deck damage rate reference should be marked in the text.
The values of the various parameters in the figure are a range of values, and how the authors eventually took the exact values should be explained in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
I think authors have carefully revised their work based on the reviewer's comments, and thank authors for considering my opinion. It is a wonderful review experience. I think it can be accepted for publishing. Well done.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
To improve the article's accuracy and the results presented, I suggest introducing the characteristics of the materials tested. If possible, typical material and strength parameters of commonly made pavements should be given. Such data should be obtainable, for example, from national catalogues of typical road pavements.
Yours Sincerely,
Reviewer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
