Next Article in Journal
An Evaluation of Orbital Angular Momentum Multiplexing Technology
Previous Article in Journal
Research on a Mixed Gas Classification Algorithm Based on Extreme Random Tree
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Bonding Evaluation of Asphalt Emulsions used as Tack Coats through Shear Testing

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(9), 1727; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9091727
by José Roberto Galaviz-González, David Avalos Cueva *, Pedro Limón Covarrubias and Miguel Zamora Palacios
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(9), 1727; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9091727
Submission received: 21 March 2019 / Revised: 10 April 2019 / Accepted: 23 April 2019 / Published: 26 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Civil Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents experimental studies of the bonding of asphalt emulsions used as tack coats. For this purpose, LCB shear test were considered. Comparisons between the results shows the slow set emulsions presented a greater fracture energy than the rapid set emulsions.


This is no doubt an interesting paper. However, this reviewer does not recommend the publication of the manuscript in the present form because of the following reasons:

1) This reviewer think it will be useful if the authors provide some additional information on the methodology used in this study.

2) English usage and spelling should be improved.

3) The manuscript needs better description of the mechanical properties of asphaltic materials in pavement design, such as linear and nonlinear viscoelastic properties.  They may use available literature such as the following reference:

·         Bazzaz, M., Darabi, M. K., Little, D. N., & Garg, N. (2018). A straightforward procedure to characterize nonlinear viscoelastic response of asphalt concrete at high temperatures. Transportation Research Record2672(28), 481-492.

This paper will recommend for publication if the authors consider the above suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Some editing is still needed. I believe it will be done before publishing.

Author Response

Corrections and replies to reviewer #1:

 

We are grateful to the reviewer auditor for a very careful reading of the manuscript, which has helped to improve the text. We had to partially rewrite some sections. Also, we have added and made changes in some figures. Although it is true that the paper contained English language editing mistakes, these have been corrected. The replies and suggested corrections are presented. The original text of the manuscript is in black typeface and changes to the manuscript are shown in red.

 

The replies and suggested corrections are presented.


Reviewer #1:

This paper presents experimental studies of the bonding of asphalt emulsions used as tack coats. For this purpose, LCB shear test were considered. Comparisons between the results shows the slow set emulsions presented a greater fracture energy than the rapid set emulsions.

 

 

This is no doubt an interesting paper. However, this reviewer does not recommend the publication of the manuscript in the present form because of the following reasons:

 

1)      This reviewer think it will be useful if the authors provide some additional information on the methodology used in this study.

 

We agree we the remark. The methodology has been improved.

 

2)      English usage and spelling should be improved.

 

We agree we the remark. we have improved the English language (certificate is attached at the next page).

 

3) The manuscript needs better description of the mechanical properties of asphaltic materials in pavement design, such as linear and nonlinear viscoelastic properties.  They may use available literature such as the following reference:

 

·         Bazzaz, M., Darabi, M. K., Little, D. N., & Garg, N. (2018). A straightforward procedure to characterize nonlinear viscoelastic response of asphalt concrete at high temperatures. Transportation Research Record, 2672(28), 481-492.

This paper will recommend for publication if the authors consider the above suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Some editing is still needed. I believe it will be done before publishing.

 

We agree with the remark. We have reviewed the work and we included them in the research. In addition, the text has been improved with detailed description of the mechanical properties of asphaltic materials in pavement design.


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Figure 3 depicts the peck load at failure for different blends. Then, Figure 4 directly shows the fracture energy needed to delaminate the interlayer. This process needs the displacement during the failure before and after of the peck loads. It is obscure whether the total displacement is used for measuring the fracture energy or the displacement until the peck load. To clarify the methodology for measuring the fracture energy, please review some relevant researches (e.g., Experimental and numerical investigation of low-temperature performance of modified asphalt binders and mixtures; Induced heating-healing characterization of activated carbon modified asphalt concrete under microwave radiation; Induction heating and healing of carbon black modified asphalt concrete under microwave radiation) expressing the method of measuring the fracture energy for different experimental set-up tests of asphalt concrete. Please review and enhance your introduction and analyses.

 

The introduction needs to be improved with more existing researches. You may want to reviewed and improve the introduction. In this order, some research investigating the interlayer properties of asphalt concrete (e.g., Evaluation of the geo-mechanical parameters of the interface between asphalt concrete and sand with applying direct shear test and numerical modeling) will be helpful.


Author Response

Corrections and replies to reviewer #2:

 

We are grateful to the reviewer auditor for a very careful reading of the manuscript, which has helped to improve the text. We had to partially rewrite some sections. Also, we have added and make changes in some figures. Although it is true that the paper contained English language editing mistakes, these have been corrected. The replies and suggested corrections are presented. The original text of the manuscript is in black typeface and changes to the manuscript are shown in red.

 

The replies and suggested corrections are presented.

 

Figure 3 depicts the peck load at failure for different blends. Then, Figure 4 directly shows the fracture energy needed to delaminate the interlayer. This process needs the displacement during the failure before and after of the peck loads. It is obscure whether the total displacement is used for measuring the fracture energy or the displacement until the peck load. To clarify the methodology for measuring the fracture energy, please review some relevant researches (e.g., Experimental and numerical investigation of low-temperature performance of modified asphalt binders and mixtures; Induced heating-healing characterization of activated carbon modified asphalt concrete under microwave radiation; Induction heating and healing of carbon black modified asphalt concrete under microwave radiation) expressing the method of measuring the fracture energy for different experimental set-up tests of asphalt concrete. Please review and enhance your introduction and analyses.

We agree with the comment. In summary, we have reviewed the works and we included them in the research. The introduction and analyses have been improved.

 

The introduction needs to be improved with more existing researches. You may want to reviewed and improve the introduction. In this order, some research investigating the interlayer properties of asphalt concrete (e.g., Evaluation of the geo-mechanical parameters of the interface between asphalt concrete and sand with applying direct shear test and numerical modeling) will be helpful.

We agree we the remark. We have reviewed the work and we included them in the research. The introduction has been improved.


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Great effort has been done by the authors, and the paper can be considered for publication.


Reviewer 2 Report

The comments suggested in the first review have been addressed properly. 

Back to TopTop