Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a novel model for prediction of tyre-road noise based on asphalt mixture composition. For that, analysis of different types of noise-reducting asphalt pavements were tested from 16 road sections, measuring their acoustic properties by using the close-proximity (CPX) method.

In opinion of this reviewer, the topic and scope of the manuscript are interesting and it can be a fair contribution to its scientific field, but some changes must be made before its consideration for publication.

The most important issue detected is that a deep, thorough revision of English must be made by native or a professional proofreading service. It is really hard to follow some passages of the manuscript.

The authors should also should revise the in-text citation format, which does not follow the journal guidelines.

Some specific issues:

L37 "km/p"

L43, 77, 85, 92, etc: Incorrect reference format. Use the journal's standard in-text citation.

L50: Acronyms not defined.

L69-70: Not necessary to repeat, use only SMA acronym.

L105: Acronyms not defined previously in the text.

Fig. 3 is unnecessary. Instead, add a column in Table 1 with the number of samples from each section.

Section 3.2: Include references for test standards mentioned.

L188: Not sure that "R2 < 0.20" is a correct expression. Recheck that.

Table 2: Define acronym (PSV). "Crushed gravel" is not a type of aggregate, be more specific (e.g., name the rock or mineral).

L215: Use the superscript ² for squared units.

Table 6. Point out what the highlighted values are.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for comments. We have made major corrections to our paper all your comments where fulfiled. The new version of paper is attached.

Best regards

Rita

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall good work. However, if a more in depth analysis is done on the extracted asphalt to relate to sound decay and how it relates to asphalt structure, this could be an added value.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for positive review.

Best regards

Rita

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a model for tire/road noise level prediction based on asphalt mixture composition. The experiments have been conducted carefully and the results are well documented, however, the paper is not well written. The submitted paper seems to be more a draft than a final document, therefore, it cannot be accepted in its current form.

 

Specific comments in order to improve the work.

The work is based on some construction characteristics of pavements such as mixture air void content or aggregate shape, but the mean profile Depth is not included in the paper. Please, revise lines 13 and 14 of the abstract.

Rewrite lines 14-16 of the abstract.

Line 37. What does “km/p” mean?? Do authors mean “km/h”??

Lines 49-52. Pavements are classified according to the tire/pavement noise, but authors must specify the reference speed for this classification.

Lines 82-84. Figure 1 does not agree with this paragraph. Noise measurements for air voids contents higher than 8 % seem to be constant in figure 1. What about the linear fitting? And the slope?

Line 118. Authors say, “data from 18 field pavement with 64 sections”. However, there are 65 sections indicated in lines 120-124 (19 AC11VN; 1 AC11VS; 1 AC11PAS-H; 1 PA8; 10 SA1; 11 SMA11S;  15 SMA8S; 1 SMA5TM; 5 SMA8TM; 1 TMOA5)

Line 122. Why are the 15 sections SMA8S not included in figure 3.

Line 128. The figure caption should better explain the figure.

Eq2 and line 16. Xij or xij?? Uppercase or lowercase?

Table 3. The values should have the same number of decimal places.

Line 286. If the assumption on the normality of residuals is not satisfied… does that mean that the results of the model are not representative??

Line 305. 16 asphalt pavement sections? Or 18? Or 64? Or 65? Please, clarify.

Lines 310-321. These paragraphs should not be included in the conclusions but within the analysis of results.

Line 322. What about the 50 km/h measurements indicated in line151 of the manuscript?

 

Authors must finish and review their work before submitting it to a review. See for instance:

Line 118-119. Does this figure refer to figure 3??

Line 223. Table 6??

Line 225. According to 4.3??

Lines 226-235 are the same that lines 254-263

Lines 236-240. Which table??

Line 241. Table 7?? Lines 241-245 have nonsense here.

Line 293-295. Figure 8??

Line 298-299. Figure 6 is not cited in the text.

 

English spelling should be revised:

Lines 67-68. The most frequency pavement… is the SMA and PA.

Line 71. Noise level increase.

Line 68. Son et al. Studies.

Line 92. Losa et al. Investigate.

Line 94. Losa et al. Improved. (Tense?)

Line 97. Wu et al developer.

Line 100. isn’t limites

Line 104. Predicted tyre/noise based on OBSI method measured noise based on driving speed.

Line 132-133. “3 specimens were cored” and “is the average values”

Line 151. Testes

Line176 and line 181. Homoscedasticity or homoskedasticity?

 

The paper is interesting, but it must be finished and revised before being considered for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for a very valuable comments.

We have made major corrections to our paper and nearly all your comments where fulfiled. The new version of paper is attached.

However, we would like to discuss some statements:

"Line 286. If the assumption on the normality of residuals is not satisfied… does that mean that the results of the model are not representative??"

- The normality residuals is needed for evaluating the errors of predicted noise, it doesn't show the representation of model. We have stated that their is a need to extend research.

Of cause, we could eliminate some values, which would give more normal residuals. Then the developed model will be representative, but not an universal, and this was not our object.  

 

Best regards

Rita

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of this reviewer's concerns and questions, but before its final publications some slight revisions must be made.

Some English corrections have been made, but still some typos have been detected by this reviewer, so it is necessary to thoroughly revise the text.

FInally, some specific issues that have not been corrected satisfyingly:

L105: OBSI acronym is not defined in the text.

Table 2: Delete "The" in caption. Define PSV acronym using a footnote, or previously in the text. "Crushed stone" is not a type of aggregate yet, so try being more specific by defining the name of the rock.

Table 6. Point out what the highlighted values are using a footnote or in the table caption.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We are attaching final paper after English language edition.  

We deleted aggregate type from table, because of confusion. We do have crushed gravel as aggregate tipe, which sometimes is called as crushed stone, other translation I have find as crushed sedimentary rock. 

Thank you for your time and passion! 

Best regards

Rita

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have adequately addressed my comments.

The paper can be accepted in its current form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we did English language edition. We added the final version of paper.

Thank you for your time and patience!

Best regards

Rita