Comparative Study on Pavement Performance of Asphalt Mixtures Modified by Calcium Sulfate Whisker and Calcium Carbonate Whisker

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work examines the influence of calcium sulfate whisker and calcium carbonate whisker on the pavement properties of asphalt mixture, such as high temperature stability, water stability and low temperature performance. Both whiskers were found to have a beneficial effect on the high temperature performance and water stability of asphalt mixture, with the calcium sulfate whisker having a better performance improvement. Unfortunately, the calcium carbonate whisker has no obvious effect on low temperature performance of asphalt mixture, and the addition of excessive calcium carbonate whisker reduces its low temperature performance. The authors used different amounts of fiber modifiers to determine their optimal amount. Generally, the best results were obtained with 0.4% of the whisker content.

In my opinion, the paper is worth publishing in Coatings after minor corrections.

1) “Introduction”: Commonly known information on calcium carbonate, i.e. its chemical formula, molecular weight, etc. has been unnecessarily included.

2) Figures 1 and 2: please provide more information on the technique used to obtain the images.

3) Line 112, Fig 6 and further: “mpa” should be replaced by “MPa”.

4) The text uses incorrect references to the figures, e.g.

3.1. Stability at high temperature - the description applies to Figure 3, not Figure 1.

3.2. Crack resistance at low temperature - the description applies to Figures 4-6 and not Figures 2-4.

5) The caption of Figure 5 (line 159) should be corrected.

6) The sentence given below requires rewording as it is difficult to understand:

“(1) mixed with calcium sulphate whisker, after the high temperature stability of asphalt mixture, low temperature crack resistance and water stability will have different degrees of ascension, and after mixed with calcium carbonate whisker, high temperature stability and water stability of asphalt mixture were promoted, no obvious improve low temperature performance, even adding excess calcium carbonate whisker against low temperature performance of asphalt mixture.”

7) “4. Discussion” should be replaced by “4. Conclusions”.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

 

Thanks for your letter and the reviewers' constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled '1946226 'Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. We have studied these comments carefully and made modifications which we hope meet with your approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responses to the reviewers' comments are listed below.

Responds to the reviewers' comments:

1) “Introduction”: Commonly known information on calcium carbonate, i.e. its chemical formula, molecular weight, etc. has been unnecessarily included.

2) Figures 1 and 2: please provide more information on the technique used to obtain the images.

3) Line 112, Fig 6 and further: “mpa” should be replaced by “MPa”.

4) The text uses incorrect references to the figures, e.g.

3.1. Stability at high temperature - the description applies to Figure 3, not Figure 1.

3.2. Crack resistance at low temperature - the description applies to Figures 4-6 and not Figures 2-4.

5) The caption of Figure 5 (line 159) should be corrected.

6) The sentence given below requires rewording as it is difficult to understand:

“(1) mixed with calcium sulphate whisker, after the high temperature stability of asphalt mixture, low temperature crack resistance and water stability will have different degrees of ascension, and after mixed with calcium carbonate whisker, high temperature stability and water stability of asphalt mixture were promoted, no obvious improve low temperature performance, even adding excess calcium carbonate whisker against low temperature performance of asphalt mixture.”

7) “4. Discussion” should be replaced by “4. Conclusions”.

Response:

We've removed some of the well-known information about calcium carbonate in the "Introduction," and figure 1 and 2 were taken in the lab using an electron microscope.

We have changed the graphic mismatch issue and changed the "Mpa" in figure 6 to "MPa".

We have modified the title of Figure 5.

We have reworded “(1) mixed with calcium sulphate whisker, after the high temperature stability of asphalt mixture, low temperature crack resistance and water stability will have different degrees of ascension, and after mixed with calcium carbonate whisker, high temperature stability and water stability of asphalt mixture were promoted, no obvious improve low temperature performance, even adding excess calcium carbonate whisker against low temperature performance of asphalt mixture.”

We changed Discussion to Conclusions

Thanks very much for your comments, which are very helpful to improve the quality of this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An experimental research having applicable character.

The introduction and tests are described well.

To improve the paper quality applicable conclusions must be added at the end, as well as the original contribution have to be stated both in the description of the aim and in conclusions.

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thanks for your letter and the reviewers' constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled '1946226 'Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. We have studied these comments carefully and made modifications which we hope meet with your approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responses to the reviewers' comments are listed below.

Responds to the reviewers' comments:

To improve the paper quality applicable conclusions must be added at the end, as well as the original contribution have to be stated both in the description of the aim and in conclusions.

Response:

We have added a description of the original contribution to the conclusion and also modify the conclusions section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript discusses the effect of different percentages of two fibre-like additives with regard to their performance in asphalt mixtures on a lab scale. The manuscript lacks of scientific soundness and is rather a report of the results, therefore, it does not meet the requirements of publication.

Some comments for future resubmission are given below:

The manuscript needs extensive check for grammar, syntax, scientific wording and sentence structures see i.e. lines 9-10, 34-35, 14-15, 16-20, 27, 105

The results lack analysis and discussion, whereas conclusions are provided as the discussion part.

The testing methods need to be based on the corresponding norms of the method and preferably to be separated in subsections.

In lines 145, 162 and 171 there is some effort for analysis which should be expanded to consist a scientific manuscript.

It is not clear why the specific percentages of calcium sulfate and carbonate whisker were chosen from the literature. What was the rationale behind it?

 

How do the authors measure the wax content in Table 1, based on which technique, DSC or similar?

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

 

Thanks for your letter and the reviewers' constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled '1946226 'Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. We have studied these comments carefully and made modifications which we hope meet with your approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responses to the reviewers' comments are listed below.

 

Responds to the reviewers' comments:

The manuscript needs extensive check for grammar, syntax, scientific wording and sentence structures see i.e. lines 9-10, 34-35, 14-15, 16-20, 27, 105

The results lack analysis and discussion, whereas conclusions are provided as the discussion part.

The testing methods need to be based on the corresponding norms of the method and preferably to be separated in subsections.

In lines 145, 162 and 171 there is some effort for analysis which should be expanded to consist a scientific manuscript.

It is not clear why the specific percentages of calcium sulfate and carbonate whisker were chosen from the literature. What was the rationale behind it?

 

How do the authors measure the wax content in Table 1, based on which technique, DSC or similar?

Response：

First of all, I would like to express my deep apologies to you.My poor English proficiency has bothered your judges but I have done my best to express what I want to say.

We've rewritten lines 9-10, 34-35, 14-15, 16-20, 27, 105.

The tests used in this institute are carried out in strict accordance with the provisions of the "Test Regulations for Asphalt and Asphalt Mixtures in Highway Engineering" (JTGE20-2011) of China and in the article we have taken the test method as a separate section.

We have revised and supplemented the conclusions.

The starting point for the comparative study of calcium carbonate whiskers and calcium sulfate whiskers is because these two whiskers have received widespread attention in the field of improving the road performance of asphalt mixtures at this stage, and the physical properties of these two whiskers are similar, so these two whiskers are selected for comparative study.

The method of testing the wax content of asphalt is by cracking distillation.

The above are we changes and responses to your valuable comments.

We have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made extensive modification in the riginal manuscript according to the comments. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. 

We appreciate for editor and reviewer's warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have provided back a considerably improved manuscript, however, certain spots need attention before publication.

The quality of all figures is low and should be improved (please double-check the pdf even for review purposes).

The authors mention the way of wax determination in their responses is cracking distillation. This should be first added in the manuscript as well. However, recent studies have observed differences between wax determination between various methods, thus presenting a value may be tricky. See for example recent studies that have investigated this aspect https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12060755

There are still a number of grammar and typos. Not to mention explicitly all of them i.e. conclusions should be written with one 's' and others. Please thoroughly check your manuscript throughout your text. 

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thanks for your letter and the reviewers' constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled ' 1946226' . Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. We have studied these comments carefully and made modifications which we hope meet with your approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responses to the reviewers' comments are listed below.

Responds to the reviewers' comments:

The authors have provided back a considerably improved manuscript, however, certain spots need attention before publication.

The quality of all figures is low and should be improved (please double-check the pdf even for review purposes).

The authors mention the way of wax determination in their responses is cracking distillation. This should be first added in the manuscript as well. However, recent studies have observed differences between wax determination between various methods, thus presenting a value may be tricky. See for example recent studies that have investigated this aspect https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12060755

There are still a number of grammar and typos. Not to mention explicitly all of them i.e. conclusions should be written with one 's' and others. Please thoroughly check your manuscript throughout your text. 

Response:

We've redrawn all of the figures in this article, and we hope they meet your expectations.

We have written the method of testing the wax content in the article, and thank you for recommending us the article about the wax content in the test. This helped us a lot and gave us more ideas and methods for future testing.

We have carefully examined the wording in the manuscript and corrected the mistakes you pointed out.

Above all, thanks very much for the comments, which are very helpful to improve the quality of this article. We have revised the manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have taken into account the comments of all reviewers. There is still a final finishing touch before publication.

For keeping your suggestion for an absolute wax percentage it would be quite necessary to mention various works that have found different approaches with regard to the wax content and mention them in your manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thanks for your letter and the reviewers' constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled '1946226'. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. We have studied these comments carefully and made modifications which we hope meet with your approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responses to the reviewers' comments are listed below.

Responds to the reviewers' comments:

For keeping your suggestion for an absolute wax percentage it would be quite necessary to mention various works that have found different approaches with regard to the wax content and mention them in your manuscript.

Responds:

With reference to your opinions, we briefly summarized several methods for testing wax content in the part of the article that mentions the use methods for testing wax content, and put the sources in the references. Because most of the current domestic experiments are conducted according to the provisions of Standard test methods of wax and biological mixtures for highway engineering: JTG E20-2011 [M], there was no careful consideration of whether there were other methods when testing wax content.We really benefited from these exchanges with you, and we also put the articles recommended to us in your second review comments into the references.

We have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made extensive modification in the riginal manuscript according to the comments. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. 

Thank you again for your review work during this period of time. I really admire your serious and rigorous work attitude.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx