Evaluation of Pavement Skid Resistance Using Surface Three-Dimensional Texture Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review: coatings-681030-peer-review-v1
Evaluation of Pavement Skid resistance using Surface Three-dimensional Texture Data
The authors investigated the relation between skid resistance and texture indicators.
The language of paper is poor. Proofreading and improving the language of the paper is necessary. There are several grammatical and format errors. Please proofread the article carefully and also use my comments as a guidance.
Line 2: “Due to worse coordination …” worse does not have a meaning here.
Line 108: Eloss: Please correct all explanations of equations' parameters. Specifically, please use the upper- and lower-script fonts.
Lines 113 – 115: “But when the rubber tires … will remains unchanged.” The meaning of this sentence is not clear, please rewrite the sentence.
Lines 121-124: It is not clear what is mentioned here because of poor English language.
Lines 126-131: Lots of equation's parameters are missed. Authors need to proofread the paper completely. Lots of these errors could be removed by one proofreading.
Line 133: missing parameters between parentheses.
There are numerous of these issues. The paper needs significant proofreading and language improvement.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thanks for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Evaluation of Pavement Skid resistance using Surface Three-dimensional Texture Data" (ID: coatings-681030). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope to meet with approval. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Revised portions are highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in the paper.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Fei Zhou
The main corrections in the paper and the respond to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Reviewer #1:The authors investigated the relation between skid resistance and texture indicators. The language of paper is poor. Proofreading and improving the language of the paper is necessary. There are several grammatical and format errors. Please proofread the article carefully and also use my comments as a guidance.
Line 2: “Due to worse coordination …” worse does not have a meaning here.
Line 108: Eloss: Please correct all explanations of equations' parameters. Specifically, please use the upper- and lower-script fonts.
Lines 113 – 115: “But when the rubber tires … will remains unchanged.” The meaning of this sentence is not clear, please rewrite the sentence.
Lines 121-124: It is not clear what is mentioned here because of poor English language.
Lines 126-131: Lots of equation's parameters are missed. Authors need to proofread the paper completely. Lots of these errors could be removed by one proofreading. Line 133: missing parameters between parentheses.
There are numerous of these issues. The paper needs significant proofreading and language improvement.
Response: Thanks very much. All the grammatical and format errors mentioned above have been modified. Besides, considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, a thorough sentence-by-sentence check has been performed. We have also engaged one professional accustomed to writing in English in revising this article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript, “named Evaluation of Pavement Skid resistance using Surface three-dimensional Texture Data” describes a method for assessing pavement skid resistance through a three-dimensional evaluation of surface texture with a binocular reconstruction method. A quadratic regression model has been developed that links skid resistance to texture indicators.
This reviewer believes that the work has a good scientific value, but that it can be improved in some aspects.
In the manuscript, are well described the theoretical mechanisms (section 3) governing the relationship between skid resistance and texture, and the research program (subsections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3), while subsections 4.4 and section 5 should be improved.
The authors could add a figure with an example of a three-dimensional reconstruction of a sample. In addition, the authors could describe the methods or standards by which skid resistance measurements with BPN and DF60 were performed on the samples. The authors could add the adhesion data and texture indicators through which the regression was obtained.
Specific comments
Some formulas are written in Italic, must be corrected and written in normal character.
From line 126 to line 138, some symbols are missing (α, E*, etc.)
Line 126, add spaces between “andβare”
Line 133, add space between “andβ”
Line 239, add space between “wavelengthΔx”
Line 240, add space between“to1”
Line 242, put formula to the head
Subsection 4.4: It is not clear how the friction tests were carried out and which standards were adopted. For example in the case of BPN it is not clear on which areas skid resistance tests were carried out and whether these are the same areas where the 3D evaluation of the texture was carried out, which slider width was used, which sliding length was used, the measurement temperature, whether the surface was dry or wet, etc.
Section 5. Add table with the data from which the regression was derived (BPN, X MTD1 Sk1 λ) e (DF60, MTD, λ, Sk1, X, Y).
Lines 331-334, “Analyzing …” The concept is not clear
Line 370 is not clear where the statement comes from “The results show that the macro-texture directly affects the adhesive component”
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thanks for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Evaluation of Pavement Skid resistance using Surface Three-dimensional Texture Data" (ID: coatings-681030). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope to meet with approval. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Revised portions are highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in the paper.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Fei Zhou
The main corrections in the paper and the respond to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Reviewer #2:
In the manuscript, are well described the theoretical mechanisms (section 3) governing the relationship between skid resistance and texture, and the research program (subsections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3), while subsections 4.4 and section 5 should be improved. The authors could add a figure with an example of a three-dimensional reconstruction of a sample. In addition, the authors could describe the methods or standards by which skid resistance measurements with BPN and DF60 were performed on the samples. The authors could add the adhesion data and texture indicators through which the regression was obtained.
Response: Accept the suggestion with pleasure. Subsections 4.4 and section 5 have been improved. The figure, the description and the data are all added into the revision.
Some formulas are written in Italic, must be corrected and written in normal character.
From line 126 to line 138, some symbols are missing (α, E*, etc.)
Line 126, add spaces between “andβare”
Line 133, add space between “andβ”
Line 239, add space between “wavelengthΔx”
Line 240, add space between“to1”
Line 242, put formula to the head
Response: Thanks very much. All the grammatical and format errors mentioned above have been modified.
Subsection 4.4: It is not clear how the friction tests were carried out and which standards were adopted. For example in the case of BPN it is not clear on which areas skid resistance tests were carried out and whether these are the same areas where the 3D evaluation of the texture was carried out, which slider width was used, which sliding length was used, the measurement temperature, whether the surface was dry or wet, etc.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Both BPN and DF60 are standard test methods. ASTM Test procedures provide detailed requirements for test conditions and procedures. For example in the case of BPN, the test area is the same with 3D texture (but the test area of DF60 is a ring with a diameter of 30 cm that is along the track of the accelerate abrasion tester). The slider width is 6mm and the sliding length is 126mm. The standard temperature is 20℃. During the test, the road surface at the test point shall be sprinkled with a water spray pot to make the road surface in a wet state. Detailed test procedures have been cited in the revision.
Section 5. Add table with the data from which the regression was derived (BPN, X MTD1 Sk1 λ) e (DF60, MTD, λ, Sk1, X, Y).
Response: Accept the suggestion with pleasure. The Table has added into the revised version.
Lines 331-334, “Analyzing …” The concept is not clear
Response: We are sorry for our imprecise expression. The main concept is: DF60 and BPN have different test speeds. The test speed of DF60 is much faster than that of BFN. Then the impact and abrasion of DF60 on aggregate are more serious. More intense forces make DF60 more sensitive to the hardness or wear-resistant of mineral aggregates. Therefore, more parameters are needed to distinguish the type of aggregate in DF60 model.
Line 370 is not clear where the statement comes from “The results show that the macro-texture directly affects the adhesive component”
Response: Thank you for reminding. This sentence has been modified.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Check the format of the "Sk" column in table 2.
Line 323 - check the position of "5.2 The further harmonization of evaluation model" at the head
Author Response
The main corrections in the paper and the respond to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
1.Check the format of the "Sk" column in table 2.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion very much. The format in Table 2 has been checked and corrected.
2.Line 323 - check the position of "5.2 The further harmonization of evaluation model" at the head
Response: We are sorry for our careless. This position and the format have been corrected.
