Gradation Influence on Crack Resistance of Stress-Absorbing Membrane Interlayer
, Bin Wang 6 and Shende Liu 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigates the impact of gradations on the cracking performance of pavement, focusing specifically on the asphalt rubber stress-absorbing membrane interlayer. Various cracking tests and parameters were carefully selected. The test plan was well-designed, and this study is presented in a well-structured manner. The authors delved deeply into the analysis of these different cracking tests and the specific cracking properties they can describe, going beyond simple data analysis. These findings will provide valuable insights to other researchers and practitioners in the community when they encounter the challenge of selecting an appropriate cracking test for evaluating material properties. The detailed comments are as follows:
(1) The authors frequently use the word "significant" throughout the manuscript. Without quantitative numbers or statistical parameters, it might not be fair to make such a statement. For instance, on Page 11, Line 267, it states that "the Gf and KIC of different gradation mixtures were significantly different"; however, some gradations, such as 10B-1 and 10C-2, exhibited overlapping Gf (and KIC) values.
(2) On Page 3, Line 90, the statement made by the authors that "the current tests and evaluation indices for crack resistance... are too simple to effectively and systematically evaluate its performance" should be revised. Being simple is not the issue; the concern is whether these tests can accurately represent performance. Please consider revising the sentence accordingly.
(3) On Page 6, Line 173, in the "Methods" section, the authors may consider providing additional content to explain why they selected these tests (BBT, LT-SCB, CE-SCB, and OT test) for this study. Clarify how these tests align with the research objectives and why they were chosen over other potential tests.
(4) Is Figure 15 showing the averaged values between replicates or just the result of one specimen?
(5) It is hard for me to follow the observation made in Page 16, line 346. So the R and CRI showed similar trend in terms of gradation change, and good correlation between these two parameters. How could the authors reach the conclusion that “these parameters were consistent and reliable”, “therefore, R and CRI were suitable for assessing the performance”?
(6) The correlation results showed in Figure 20 seems to be dominated by the data point with the highest CA value. Can the authors also analyze the scenario if that data point was taken out?
(7) Minor issues with duplicated figures and paragraphes (the last two paragraphs in the conclusion part).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Gradation Influence on Crack Resistance of Asphalt Rubber Stress-Absorbing Membrane Interlayer
1. Description
This research investigated the influence of gradation parameters on the performance of asphalt rubber stress-absorbing membrane interlayer and used different tests for evaluating stress absorption performance. The tests used in this research have shown that the stress absorption performance was multifaceted, which required comprehensive consideration of multiple parameters. Many experiments have been done in this research, and interesting results have been obtained, but writing and technical concerns will be addressed in Section 2.
2. Comments
2.1 Overall Comments
1. It is better not to introduce abbreviations in the abstract. In the abstract, it is better to use the words in full.
2. The first letter of the keyword must be capitalized.
3. There should be space between the end of the sentence and the reference. For example, between developed and [3,4] (Line 44).
4. If a specific noun (such as additive, experiment, etc.) is used more than three times in the text, it is recommended to introduce these words in the form of abbreviations in the first use and then use their abbreviations. The introduction of abbreviations should be done once (The fracture energy is redundant in line 194).
5. There is no objectives section. The objectives of this research should be stated in a case-by-case and precise manner.
6. It is better to use more recent references in the literature review section of the research.
7. There should be proper space between the tables and the section before or after them.
8. The type of asphalt binder used should be mentioned.
9. In figures, it is better to put the units of the variables in parentheses after the variable name.
10. The description of a Figure should be placed above it.
2.2 Detailed Comments
1. The OT test (Line 73) is introduced as an abbreviation in the first use.
2. In line 60, the results of Li's work are not mentioned.
3. Li's research in lines 80 and 81 has already been mentioned in lines 59 and 60.
4. Instead of the explanations mentioned in lines 93 to 99, it is better to draw the algorithm of the research method.
5. Considering that determining the optimal bitumen contents of asphalt binder by Marshall's method is usually calculated in 3-5% air voids, on what basis is 2.5% air void considered in this research? Explain.
6. The quality of Fig. 16 should be improved.
7. The content of the rubber added was selected according to what criteria? If it is based on previous studies, the reference should be given.
8. Fig. 10 is redundantly repeated on page 12 (same as Fig.20 on page 18).
9. The number 26.77 given in line 436 does not correspond to figure 22. Please check.
10. The explanations given in lines 504-511 are similar to the explanations in lines 512-519.
11. It is mentioned in the text that a high linear correlation between R and CRI implies that the evaluation results based on these parameters were consistent and reliable. Is the R2 criterion sufficient for the consistency and reliability of the evaluation results?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for submission to the MDPI.
Title:
Seems quite lengthy kindly revisit
Abstract:
Line 17 deep enough ---- pls revise words
Line 19 domestic ---means?
Line 19 foreign standards like ------------
Line 19 -10 °C and 15 °C --- what was rational behind using these temperatures?
Line 20 and 21 pls delete extra test words in sentence
Line 22 gradation parameters-----like???
Line 22 different test indexes ---- like ???
Line 23 statistical methods ------like???
Line 23 to 25 The performance of the mixtures with different gradation ranges varied in different tests, indicating that gradation was an important factor affecting 24 stress absorption performance-----Kindly quantify the statement?
Line 25 main influencing parameters ---- what are these?
Line 27 consideration of multiple parameters---- which?
Can you add in last a line about the practical application of your research
Introduction
For references pls use the MDPI format
AR-SAMI --- If indexed in literature ? Kindly revisit
Research novelty is missing. The research objectives are wake need rephrasing?
Line 93 to 99 belongs to materials and methods?
Line 103 stabilizer-- what is this?
Tables 1 & 2 pls provide AASHTO reference standards also
Table pls enter col of technical requirement also
Table 2 crushing value is missing?
Table 2 soundness value is missing?
In abstract pls also mention that you have used crumb rubber modifier asphalt?
Line 113 classified into two types: 5-type and 10-type gradation,-----Reference pls
Line 117 to 125 a, b, c why what was rational?
Figure 1 pls mark boundaries/zone of the superpave on gradation?
Figure 1 pls mark coarse and fine aggregates limits lines for better understanding?
Line 130 2.5% design air voids-----Quite debatable? Same for all gradations? Pls try to develop some rational on it?
Table 3 how you can verify your above claim the gradation as all possible Chinese and international ?
Why gradation evaluation through Bailey method?
2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3 & 2.4.4 pls include labeled photos for the test setups and discuss.
Line 205 Results and discussions
No discussion on asphalt binders, aggregates, gradations? Pls reshuffle.
Figure 2 can we merge a and c figures in one figure ditto for b and d also.
Figures 3 and 6 what is significance of these correlations? Do we have such in existing literature?
How Figure 5 was drawn? Why only R2? Can we talk on some other statistical parameters?
Figures 7,8,9 and 10 what is significance of these correlations? Do we have such in existing literature?
Figures 11,12,13 and 14 what is significance of these correlations? Do we have such in existing literature?
Figure 15 can we develop/propose some analysis of this curve?
Figure 16 pls label the dimensions and sizes also. Figures are not clear? How figures were obtained?
Figures 17,18,19 and 20 what is significance of these correlations? Do we have such in existing literature?
Table 5 should come in Materials and methods start
Currently there is no logic of expanding paper length with R2, Coefficient of variance or Pearson coefficient ------ Kindly review the rationales behind for proposing thoughtful approach of any process?
Conclusions are known facts pls improve and try to elaborate quantitative evaluation.
Conclusions not derived from the objectives? Pls revisit.
All the best.
Few grammatic and tenses mistakes that need attention of Authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Gradation Influence on Crack Resistance of Asphalt Rubber Stress-Absorbing Membrane Interlayer
1. Comments
1.1 Overall Comments
1. It is better not to introduce abbreviations in the abstract. In the abstract, it is better to use the words in full.
Reviewer: It is better to introduce the SCB test in full.
2. The first letter of the keyword must be capitalized.
Reviewer: It was not fully observed.
3. There should be space between the end of the sentence and the reference. For example, between developed and [3,4] (Line 44).
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
4. If a specific noun (such as additive, experiment, etc.) is used more than three times in the text, it is recommended to introduce these words in the form of abbreviations in the first use and then use their abbreviations. The introduction of abbreviations should be done once (The fracture energy is redundant in line 194).
Reviewer: Parentheses should be removed from Gf (line 250).
5. There is no objectives section. The objectives of this research should be stated in a case-by-case and precise manner.
Reviewer: In lines 108 to 122, the necessity of doing research is mainly discussed, not the purpose of conducting it.
6. It is better to use more recent references in the literature review section of the research.
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
7. There should be proper space between the tables and the section before or after them.
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
8. The type of asphalt binder used should be mentioned.
Reviewer: Acceptable!
9. In figures, it is better to put the units of the variables in parentheses after the variable name.
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
10. The description of a Figure should be placed above it.
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
1.2 Detailed Comments
1. The OT test (Line 73) is introduced as an abbreviation in the first use.
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
2. In line 60, the results of Li's work are not mentioned.
Reviewer: Sampave should be introduced.
3. Li's research in lines 80 and 81 has already been mentioned in lines 59 and 60.
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
4. Instead of the explanations mentioned in lines 93 to 99, it is better to draw the algorithm of the research method.
Reviewer: This item has not been answered!
5. Considering that determining the optimal bitumen contents of asphalt binder by Marshall's method is usually calculated in 3-5% air voids, on what basis is 2.5% air void considered in this research? Explain.
Reviewer: This item has not been answered!
6. The quality of Fig. 16 should be improved.
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
7. The content of the rubber added was selected according to what criteria? If it is based on previous studies, the reference should be given.
Reviewer: This item has not been answered!
8. Fig. 10 is redundantly repeated on page 12 (same as Fig.20 on page 18).
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
9. The number 26.77 given in line 436 does not correspond to figure 22. Please check.
Reviewer: The changes made to this figure are acceptable, but the numbers extracted from the previous figure should also be checked.
10. The explanations given in lines 504-511 are similar to the explanations in lines 512-519.
Reviewer: Changes are acceptable.
11. It is mentioned in the text that a high linear correlation between R and CRI implies that the evaluation results based on these parameters were consistent and reliable. Is the R2 criterion sufficient for the consistency and reliability of the evaluation results?
Reviewer: Answer this question.
It is not the right way to highlight all the improvements made. You should answer each question in detail and indicate the correct place of the answer precisely in the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
