Marshall-Based Thermal Performance Analysis of Conventional and Polymer-Modified Asphalt Binders

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Marshall-Based Thermal Performance Analysis of Conventional and Polymer-Modified Asphalt Binders " compares the high-temperature performance of conventional (40/50 penetration grade) and polymer-modified (PG 76-10) asphalt mixtures under Iraqi summer conditions using Marshall Stability, Flow, and Stiffness tests. Results show that the polymer-modified mixture consistently outperforms the conventional one in thermal resistance and mechanical integrity, supporting its use in hot-climate pavement design.

The paper has minor grammatical and stylistic issues throughout (e.g., redundant phrases like “This study presents…” followed by “the results demonstrate…”). Consider professional language editing to improve conciseness and reduce passive constructions. Example: “The results clearly demonstrate…”could be Results demonstrate…”.

The novelty of this study in contrast to these works should be emphasized.

Explicitly state the number of specimens tested per condition to ensure statistical validity.

Consider clarifying if statistical analysis (e.g., standard deviation, ANOVA) was performed to assess differences.

The impact of prolonged conditioning could be discussed more—does 24h reflect field conditions accurately?

Add a bullet or paragraph on limitations of the study, e.g., absence of field trials or traffic simulation.

Suggest more concrete implementation pathways for Iraq standards based on the results.

Avoid clusters of references.

Please format the paper according to the template journal.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In lines 32-39, please indicate what type of climate occurs in Iraq or in which countries are located on a common geographical parallel/meridian, where this problem occurs.

2. In lines 40-47, please indicate what is done to counteract this problem. Isn't there an increased content of aggregate used?

3. In lines 48-55, please provide additional examples beyond SBS; this copolymer is already outdated, and other solutions are also used.

4. Table 1 is difficult to read; please leave some space between the content in the columns

5. Lines 165 to 176 are a repetition of the content from lines 106-126.

6. All raw materials listed in the Materials and Methods section should have a trade name and, manufacturer (city, country).

7. All devices and apparatus listed in the Materials and Methods section should have a device model, serial number, and manufacturer (city, country).

8. Aggregate Gradation and Marshall Stability and Flow Test, included in section 3, should be moved to section 4, where all results are.

9. Please provide the literature for equations 1-3 used.

10. Please support the theses put forward in Thermal Degradation Rate Analysis with scientific literature.

11. The work contains very few figures, only dry results in the form of Tables. Please add photographs of the tested samples to enrich the work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript entitled 'Marshall-Based Thermal Performance Analysis of Conventional and Polymer-Modified Asphalt Binders' is systematic and informative. However, I recommend considering the following aspects before publication in this journal:

1. Please include relevant photographs illustrating the raw materials used in this research. These visuals would significantly enhance reader comprehension.
2. Similarly, adding clear graphs and photographs to depict the test results is recommended. Currently, the results and comparative analyses are challenging to interpret clearly.
3. Although the authors have established a solid starting point, the manuscript lacks critical comparative analysis between the current test results and those from previous studies. Strengthening this comparison would greatly enhance the manuscript's quality.
4. In both the abstract and conclusions, it would be beneficial to include specific percentage differences or other quantifiable measures to clearly demonstrate the significance of the test results. Additionally, please emphasize the originality and unique contributions of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for making changes. I recommend for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments.