Fatigue Analysis of Sustainable Bituminous Pavements with Artificial and Recycled Aggregates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript titled “Damage laws and Life Cycle Assessment testing the mechanical behavior of sustainable bituminous pavements”. It is found that authors have incorporated the comments, and the manuscript may be accepted for the publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. SEM/XRD Microscopic Analysis of Steel Wool Fiber Reinforcement
2. Add p-values or 95% confidence intervals to the fatigue data in Table 2
3. Add reference values of the benchmark mixture in the fiber performance comparison column

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. numerical results are included in the relevant parts of the summary to make the research results more operable.
2. in the summary part, at least one key achievement should be quantified to obtain better impact.
3. in the conclusion part of the introduction, it is necessary to clearly show the novelty of this study and all the details.
4. it is suggested that the specific problems to be solved in this study should be more focused at the end of the introduction
5. optimize the structure of the introduction to make it more fluent.
6. it may be more readable to make the technical index of aggregate into a table.
7. the author should not leave the revision marks and annotations of the manuscript in the manuscript, for example, the revision marks on pages 5 and 6. The author should carefully examine the format and layout of the manuscript, which is a basic attitude problem.
8. the fatigue equations of various mixtures (ε=a * n ^ b) are obtained through four point bending test, but it is not stated whether these models have been verified (for example, by comparing with the actual pavement performance). It is suggested to supplement the discussion of model validation or explain its limitations.
9. sine load and double wheel axle load models are used in the analysis. It is suggested to discuss the difference between this idealized loading method and the real traffic load (randomness, intermittence), as well as the potential impact on the accuracy of fatigue life prediction.
10. the fatigue test seems to be carried out at a controlled temperature, but the effect of temperature on the parameters of the fatigue equation (a, b values) is not mentioned. Temperature is the key factor of asphalt pavement performance. It is suggested to discuss the applicability of this research conclusion under different temperature conditions.
11. the paper lists the types of additives and replacement percentage, but does not specify the specific mix design process of these sustainable mixtures (such as how to determine the grading curve and the optimal asphalt content). It is suggested to supplement the design parameters of key mixtures to ensure the repeatability of the study.
12. Rap (recycled asphalt pavement) is the core recycled material, but its key characteristics (such as gradation and moisture content) are not described. These characteristics have a great impact on the performance of the mixture, and it is recommended to supplement them.
13. the definition of "service life" is vague: in this paper, "service life" is directly equivalent to the number of axle load actions (n) to achieve fatigue failure. It is suggested to make it clear that this is a structural fatigue life without considering the functional life (such as rutting and sliding resistance degradation), and discuss the limitations of this index.
14. the difference of performance improvement percentage of mixture is very small. It is suggested to discuss whether these differences are statistically significant or within the experimental error range.
15. all analyses indicated that the failure occurred at the base. It is suggested to discuss in depth why the material change of the surface course will have such a significant impact on the fatigue life of the base course, and what is its mechanical mechanism? (is stress redistribution caused by modulus change?)
16. the conclusion part largely repeats the data of the result part, rather than summarizing and refining at a higher level. It is suggested to focus on summarizing the core findings, mechanisms and universal laws.
17. the "maximum circularity criterion" is mentioned many times in the text, but it is not clearly defined. This is a key concept, and its specific indicator meaning needs to be explained.
18. the article emphasizes the ecological value, but the full text does not provide any quantitative environmental benefit data (such as carbon emission reduction and energy consumption reduction).
19. the conclusion part can supplement the guiding significance for engineering practice, such as the recommended mixture type and applicable traffic grade.
20. the format of references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The author's response lacks professionalism and academic rigor, such as Q3, Q4, Q5, Q11
2. Failure to provide a direct response to the reviewer's questions, such as Q1,
3. For individual responses with a perfunctory attitude, such as Q1, Q8, Q9,
4. Some figures and table numbers still have issues, such as Figure 4. Specific Fatigue Laws for Sustainable Mixtures
And Fig. 4. Service life of essays section 221 (PA); Table 2. Tensile strength and bulk density and Table 2. Pavement structure parameters
These questions have been raised in previous comments, and I believe that a researcher should be rigorous. The above questions completely do not conform to this characteristic.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please see the attached reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We enclose the revisions of the paper entitled “Damage laws and Life Cycle Assessment testing the mechanical behavior of sustainable bituminous pavements”, Manuscript ID: sustainability-3698022, authors Evelio Teijón-López-Zuazo, Ángel Vega-Zamanillo, Cristina Calmeiro dos Santos, David Gómez-Carrascal. All the changes in the manuscript are highlighted with the track of changes to make it more understandable. In addition, a response file is attached for each of the reviewers, including the answer (bold green) and the new lines incorporated in the manuscript (italic green) for each of their questions. The paper has been improved considerably thanks to the reviewers’ recommendations. Next, an answer to the entire reviewers’ comments is provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The application of some additives (such as salt and steel wool) lacks theoretical mechanism explanations. Microstructure analysis (such as SEM/XRD) should be supplemented to support the mechanism of their influence on durability.
2. The LCA section only mentions environmental benefits but does not quantify specific indicators (such as carbon emissions and energy consumption comparisons). It is suggested to supplement data to enhance persuasiveness.
3. The fatigue life data of the mixtures in Table 2 do not provide statistical significance tests (such as p-values or confidence intervals). Repeated test results should be supplemented.
4. It is not clearly stated whether the specimen preparation conditions (such as molding temperature and compaction degree) are uniform, which may affect the comparability of the results.
5. The chart annotations need to be optimized: the title order of Figure 1 and Figure 2 is confused.
6. Why is the elastic modulus of PA16 + salt or black residue significantly lower than that of the benchmark mixture?
7. The illustrations of copper cable recycled plastic fibers (Figure 2) and Ecoembes fibers (Figure 1) are clear, but there is no comparison of their mechanical property differences (such as crack resistance and modulus improvement rate) with traditional fibers.

Author Response

We enclose the revisions of the paper entitled “Damage laws and Life Cycle Assessment testing the mechanical behavior of sustainable bituminous pavements”, Manuscript ID: sustainability-3698022, authors Evelio Teijón-López-Zuazo, Ángel Vega-Zamanillo, Cristina Calmeiro dos Santos, David Gómez-Carrascal. All the changes in the manuscript are highlighted with the track of changes to make it more understandable. In addition, a response file is attached for each of the reviewers, including the answer (bold green) and the new lines incorporated in the manuscript (italic green) for each of their questions. The paper has been improved considerably thanks to the reviewers’ recommendations. Next, an answer to the entire reviewers’ comments is provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper invested the service life of different pavement section with sustainable asphalt mixes, using recycled materials additions in the wearing course. The research object of this paper interesting and meaningful. In general, the novelty of this paper is limited. The paper exhibits significant shortcomings in topic relevance, logical structure, methodology description, and language expression, necessitating comprehensive and thorough revisions to enhance the rigor and readability of the research. Below are specific comments for improvement before final acceptance.

1) Title: The title of the paper fails to accurately reflect the core content of the research, exhibiting a certain degree of discrepancy that may confuse readers regarding the study's focus. It is recommended to carefully re-examine the alignment between the title and content, or alternatively, adjust the research framework to better align with the stated title.

2) Abstract: The abstract of this paper does not conform to the standard requirements of academic writing. A well-structured academic abstract should systematically include: (1) research background and objectives, which should clearly state the academic context and key issues to be addressed; (2) methodology, detailing the research design, data sources, or theoretical framework; (3) main findings, summarizing core results with objective data or conclusive statements; (4) academic significance, explicitly articulating the theoretical contributions or practical implications. The author is advised to thoroughly revise the abstract according to these essential components.

3) 2.1 Materials: Regarding the materials section, the following improvements are recommended: a. To enhance readability, key material properties should be systematically presented in tabular form; b. The current description lacks detailed specifications of aggregate performance characteristics; c. For the asphalt mixture, the precise proportions of constituent materials are not provided.

4) 2.2 Methodology: The methodology section requires the following improvements: (1) Detailed descriptions of the material property testing procedures and experimental conditions are lacking; (2) The sources of material parameters need to be clearly specified, indicating whether they were obtained through experimental testing or literature references; (3) The basis for establishing the fatigue equation remains unclear - it must be explicitly stated whether it is material-based or structure-based. For the latter case, the life prediction methodology (numerical simulation or physical testing) should be further clarified. Supplementing these critical details is essential for validating the scientific rigor of the research approach.

 

Author Response

We enclose the revisions of the paper entitled “Damage laws and Life Cycle Assessment testing the mechanical behavior of sustainable bituminous pavements”, Manuscript ID: sustainability-3698022, authors Evelio Teijón-López-Zuazo, Ángel Vega-Zamanillo, Cristina Calmeiro dos Santos, David Gómez-Carrascal. All the changes in the manuscript are highlighted with the track of changes to make it more understandable. In addition, a response file is attached for each of the reviewers, including the answer (bold green) and the new lines incorporated in the manuscript (italic green) for each of their questions. The paper has been improved considerably thanks to the reviewers’ recommendations. Next, an answer to the entire reviewers’ comments is provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf