Fatigue Performance of Recycled Asphalt Mixtures: Viscoelastic Continuum Damage Approach and Cost Analysis
, Luciano Pivoto Specht 2, Silvio Lisboa Schuster 2, Pedro Orlando Borges de Almeida Júnior 2, Cléber Faccin 2, Fernando Dekeper Boeira 3, Deividi da Silva Pereira 2, Luis Alberto Herrmann do Nascimento 4 and Lélio Antônio Teixeira Brito 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
(1) in the section of introduction, the previous researches on application of RAP in asphalt mixture needs to be reviewed and summarized, the reason for the determination of the range of the incorporation levels of RAP also needs to be explained;
(2) In equation (2), (3) and (5), the form of multiplication sign should be consistent, both "*" and "x" were used in the current equations;
(3) In Figure 5. the legend is incorrect, It may be 10%, 20%, 30%,..
(4) In section 3.2, the thermal figure needs to be clearly explained, how to obtain the thermal figure? is it verified in the literature?
(5) The conclusion needs to be focused on the main results of the study.
The manuscript is written well in English.
Author Response
Dear Editors,
We thank the editorial board of the Sustainability for their valuable contributions to the manuscript. We appreciate your constructive feedback, which has enabled us to make several changes to the manuscript to enhance its clarity, rigor, and overall quality. We took your suggestions into serious consideration and made the necessary revisions to the paper.
We are confident that these revisions have improved the quality and accuracy of our research work and have made it a better fit for your journal. We hope that the updated manuscript meets the high standards of the journal and that it is accepted for publication.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper investigates the effect of RAP (aged) binders on the fatigue performance of recycled asphalt mixes, and evaluates the economic benefits of recycled asphalt mixes compared with virgin asphalt mixes.
Although the paper contains a good set of data, however, in general, the reviewer did not find this work make a sufficient contribution to the literature or to science. All research questions have been answered in the provided introduction. Even there is no statistical analysis of results to justify the comparisons between samples. Therefore, I think authors must be able to justify the novelty of their research in a separate section like 'goals and objectives'. There you should also describe the research limitations and contribution to the body of the literature. In addition, knowledge gap should be clarified clearer. The rest of the introduction can be moved to a separate section as literature review.
- The aged binder has been advised to used without using rejuvenator. Even the authors found that using 20 to 30% of RAP does not give satisfactory results.
- It is stated that the bitumen rate of RAP materials is 5.38% and 4.95% for neat and sbs RAP binders, respectively. These values have been obtained as a result of how many rotary evaporator experiment does not give the real results. Authors are suggested to show the procedure used in this study to obtain RAP binder.
- The gradation of studied mixes shall be shown and volumetric properties. It is not clear the optimum binder content used for each mixture.
- it is stated that in line 17 "The levels of RAP incorporation were 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%." were these values added as a replacement for near binders or as additives??
- It needs to mention how many samples were conducted for each experiment and include the results variation to present the results.
- The discussion of results is not very enlightening, please provide in-depth discussion of results.
- In the economic benefits section, it is recommended to further consideration of the transportation costs in each stage, and explain the various components of the cost composition of recycled asphalt mixture
- Authors are suggested to cite more updated and relevant references (published past 3 years) preferably published in sustainability journal. here is suggestions for papers
(1) https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043807
(2) https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032515
(3) https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020909
(4) https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416717
(5) https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147995
Author Response
Dear editors,
We thank the editorial board of the Sustainability for their valuable contributions to the manuscript. We appreciate your constructive feedback, which has enabled us to make several changes to the manuscript to enhance its clarity, rigor, and overall quality. We took your suggestions into serious consideration and made the necessary revisions to the paper.
We are confident that these revisions have improved the quality and accuracy of our research work and have made it a better fit for your journal. We hope that the updated manuscript meets the high standards of the journal and that it is accepted for publication.
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study is interesting and with good amount of effort in material preparation and analysis. The content is also suitable for this special issue. Some comments for further improvements include:
1_ Lines 17-18: Please justify the maximum selected percentage. Also for which asphalt layer? Please clarify.
2_ Last paragraph of the introduction: it should be made clear to the reader with which way the theme is investigated? Through laboratory testing and numerical analysis (i.e., theoretical simulations) or with field measures and subsequent analysis? Feedback from field performance is very important.
3_ Line 201 and so on: Please explain the term average damage translation factor. Provide scientific justifications for its use (i.e., references, etc). In addition, how was the transfer function 17506.3 was selected?
4_ Please specify the reference temperatures in the master curves shown in Fig. 2.
5_ Many acronyms are used especially in the economic analysis. Please consider adding an abbreviation list at the end of the paper, before the list of references.
6_ Which fatigue type did you consider? The traditional failure of bottom-up cracking or the top-down cracking, which better suits thicker structures? Please clarify and/or add study limitations and future prospects. You may see and cite similar studies, like https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures7050061 .
7_ Overall, please carefully proof-read your paper for typos and other language errors.
As per my comment No. 7.
Author Response
Dear Editors,
We thank the editorial board of the Sustainability for their valuable contributions to the manuscript. We appreciate your constructive feedback, which has enabled us to make several changes to the manuscript to enhance its clarity, rigor, and overall quality. We took your suggestions into serious consideration and made the necessary revisions to the paper.
We are confident that these revisions have improved the quality and accuracy of our research work and have made it a better fit for your journal. We hope that the updated manuscript meets the high standards of the journal and that it is accepted for publication.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer is satisfied with the responses from the authors.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that the authors have adequately addressed the comments made by tthe reviewers, therefore, the manuscript can be accepted for publication
Reviewer 3 Report
No comments.
Fine in general.
