Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Naga Siva Pavani Peraka 1,
  • Krishna Prapoorna Biligiri 2,* and
  • Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi 2

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study was to develop a multi-parameter-based delineation approach to segment the pavements into subsections considering multiple pavement characteristics. I think this manuscript can be published.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for a thorough review of the manuscript and constructivecomments that helped improve the quality of the paper. The suggestions are incorporated in the revised manuscript and highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer: 1

This study was to develop a multi-parameter-based delineation approach to segment the pavements into subsections considering multiple pavement characteristics. I think this manuscript can be published.

Response: Thank you for your kind remark.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript developed a multi-parameter-based delineation approach to segment the pavements into subsections considering multiple pavement characteristics. This manuscript needs essential modifications before it can be accepted for publication as follows:

·         The Abstract needs a profound revision and should be expanded.

·         The list of abbreviations should be added after the abstract or at the end of the paper.

·         The quality of all figures must be improved.

·         Section 6 must be rewritten and explained well.

·         Figure 8 must be explained in detail.

·         Section 7 must be merged with Section 6.

 

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for a thorough review of the manuscript and constructivecomments that helped improve the quality of the paper. The suggestions are incorporated in the revised manuscript and highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer: 2

The manuscript developed a multi-parameter-based delineation approach to segment the pavements into subsections considering multiple pavement characteristics. This manuscript needs essential modifications before it can be accepted for publication as follows:

Response: Thank you for your kind remarks.

 

  1. The Abstract needs a profound revision and should be expanded.

Response: Revised, thank you.

 

  1. The list of abbreviations should be added after the abstract or at the end of the paper.

Response: A list of abbreviations is included at the end of the paper. Thank you.

 

  1. The quality of all figures must be improved.

Response: High-quality figures are included in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

 

  1. Section 6 must be rewritten and explained well.

Response: Section 6 has been revised. Thank you.

 

  1. Figure 8 must be explained in detail.

Response: Additional text is included in Section 6.2 pertaining to Figure 8. Thank you.

 

  1. Section 7 must be merged with Section 6.

Response: Section 7 in merged with Section 6 and renumbered as Section 6.5. Thank you.

 

  1. Minor editing of English language required.

Response: The manuscript has been thoroughly checked for grammar and written in standard English.Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Figure 1 : Improve the readability of the figure and possibly the size of the arrows

Line 170 : Why is the 300 m fwd chainage relevant? Why this choice ?

Line 174 : Please write the load in Newton and not in Kg.

Line 184 : Add a reference for KGPBACK

 

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for a thorough review of the manuscript and constructivecomments that helped improve the quality of the paper. The suggestions are incorporated in the revised manuscript and highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer: 3

 

  1. Figure 1 : Improve the readability of the figure and possibly the size of the arrows.

Response: High-quality figures are included in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

 

  1. Line 170 : Why is the 300 m fwd chainage relevant? Why this choice?

Response: The minimum data collection range for FWD was found as 0.5 mile (804 m) in some of the roadway agencies in the USA. However, most of the roadway agencies elsewhere use a chainage of 300 m for FWD data collection. Hence, 300-m chainage was considered in this study.

 

  1. Line 174 : Please write the load in Newton and not in Kg.

Response: The load value in Newton is included in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

 

  1. Line 184 : Add a reference for KGPBACK.

Response: Reference is included in the manuscript. Thank you.

Reviewer 4 Report

In my opinion when you want to publish something in Europe, first of all you have to assure that you are using/reading (for the state of the art) the platforms like WOS (web of science- Journals).

In terms of References, and most important for the research you have to argue with more resources and most important, resources that can be read-verified by the reviewers (Journals that are published on WOS).

You have 25 references, that are few for an appropriate reasoning of your research and most of it are form US/Canada/India (non EU countries).

From my point of view, a research that it's made for US or Canada, have to be published there because here (in Europe) we have a lot of standards, norms and journals that have very clear results and recommendations regarding your study.

Sincerely I recommend if you want to publish in Europe to justify your research with Europeans documents and make a parallel between the European findings and the US/India/Canada ones.

This will be very interesting to see- a comparative study between Europe and US models in terms of infrastructure maintenance, because are very different. 

I must say that in the Center-Est Europe is a different approach between the Flexible and Rigid road structures and some of your parameters are found also in our norms, but in a different approach.

The length of the homogenous sector is very different of yours. You are talking about Hundreds meters, we in terms of Tens...

I recommend a serious revision and a better argue bound with the European framework. 

Honestly your research is interesting, but if you want to publish in Europe you have to argue with data and journals that are on WOS and can be read by us the reviewers. I recommend you a comparative study on this theme, and I assure you that will be interesting to read it (for the Europeans too not just the US/Canada/India citizen).

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for a thorough review of the manuscript and constructivecomments that helped improve the quality of the paper. The suggestions are incorporated in the revised manuscript and highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer: 4

 

  1. In my opinion when you want to publish something in Europe, first of all you have to assure that you are using/reading (for the state of the art) the platforms like WOS (web of science- Journals).

Response: Thank you for your remark. The study was conducted after reviewing several research articles that were published in international journals, which are listed in Scopus and Web of Science platforms.Further, research conducted in Europe were also reviewed and cited in the manuscript. Importantly, this research study was conducted for global implementation, including in Europe.

 

  1. In terms of References, and most important for the research you have to argue with more resources and most important, resources that can be read-verified by the reviewers (Journals that are published on WOS).

Response: The references that have greater relevance to the research study are cited in the manuscript. However, additional references are cited in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

 

  1. You have 25 references, that are few for an appropriate reasoning of your research and most of it are form US/Canada/India (non EU countries).

Response: Although most relevant references are cited in the manuscript, additional references from Europe are included in the revision. Thank you.

 

  1. From my point of view, a research that it's made for US or Canada, have to be published there because here (in Europe) we have a lot of standards, norms and journals that have very clear results and recommendations regarding your study.

Response: The study was designed after performing a thorough review of the existing pavement delineation methods in the USA, Canada, Asia, and Europe, and only then the method was developed that provides a globally applicable model for homogeneous sectioning of asphalt pavements. The pseudo code connected with the automation of the approach could be used to replicate the results elsewhere. Thank you.

 

  1. Sincerely I recommend if you want to publish in Europe to justify your research with Europeans documents and make a parallel between the European findings and the US/India/Canada ones.

Response: A critical review on the methods that are being practiced in different regions of the world is included in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

 

  1. This will be very interesting to see- a comparative study between Europe and US models in terms of infrastructure maintenance, because are very different.

Response: A critical review is included in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

 

  1. I must say that in the Center-Est Europe is a different approach between the Flexible and Rigid road structures and some of your parameters are found also in our norms, but in a different approach.

Response: The objective of the study was to include multiple parameters in the homogeneous sectioning process. Importantly, functional, structural, and traffic parameters were used for segmenting the asphalt pavements. However, the existing approaches generally use single parameters for segmentation. Thank you.

 

  1. The length of the homogenous sector is very different of yours. You are talking about Hundreds meters, we in terms of Tens...

Response: Should there be budgetary constraints, a homogeneous section length in tens of meters will be difficult to adopt and perform maintenance intervention. Also, a minimum section length of 800 m is too large found in published literature and the maintenance intervention may not be effective. Hence, the minimum homogeneous section length of 300 m was considered.

 

  1. I recommend a serious revision and a better argue bound with the European framework.

Response: The manuscript has been revised and the research studies performed in Europe are also cited.Thank you.

 

  1. Honestly your research is interesting, but if you want to publish in Europe you have to argue with data and journals that are on WOS and can be read by us the reviewers. I recommend you a comparative study on this theme, and I assure you that will be interesting to read it (for the Europeans too not just the US/Canada/India citizen).

Response: Thank you for an important comment. The existing delineation approaches were reviewed and the shortcomings were presented. Also, the delineation methods followed in the different geographic regions are included in the revised manuscript. The references that have greater relevance to the study and available in Scopus and/or web of science platforms are only cited in the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have successfully addressed all my comments. Therefore, I recommend the publication of this manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

2618217 – R2

Multi-Parametric Delineation Approach for Homogeneous Sectioning of Asphalt Pavements

 

Naga Siva Pavani Peraka, Krishna Prapoorna Biligiri, and Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi

 

The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for a thorough review of the manuscript and constructivecomments that helped improve the quality of the paper. The suggestions are incorporated in the revised manuscript and highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer: 2

The authors have successfully addressed all my comments. Therefore, I recommend the publication of this manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your kind remark.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thx for your answer.

You have made good improvements. What I ask from you, to say YES for publishing:

- improve the reference list at least with 5 more titles- from WOS library please (especially at sections 2 - 3 - 4 - 5).

- if you can indicate the STRUCTURE (hole structure of the road that you have analized not jus the top layers that are asphalt mixture)

- What I think that is very important for us like readers, is to specify in your study, VALUES (medium values for the Mean MPDI - what values are indicating a MPDI<4...or MPDI>14.

You have a big amount of data- but you did't present values, just the graphs. The data that I'm asking for you are: 

---Deflections

---Elasticity modulus E (surface, binder, base layers)

---Traffic values,

---IRI value

---SRT values

---rut depth

etc.

FOR EXAMPLE: You can indicate for each MPDI (<4, 4-7, 7-10, 10-14, >14) the values that you have used (a medium value NOT all the data of course).

Author Response

2618217 – R2

Multi-Parametric Delineation Approach for Homogeneous Sectioning of Asphalt Pavements

 

Naga Siva Pavani Peraka, Krishna Prapoorna Biligiri, and Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi

 

The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for a thorough review of the manuscript and constructivecomments that helped improve the quality of the paper. The suggestions are incorporated in the revised manuscript and highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer: 4

You have made good improvements. What I ask from you, to say YES for publishing:

Response: Thank you for your kind words.

 

  1. Improve the reference list at least with 5 more titles- from WOS library please (especially at sections 2 - 3 - 4 - 5).

Response: References are included, thank you.

 

  1. If you can indicate the STRUCTURE (Whole structure of the road that you have analyzed not just the top layers that are asphalt mixture)

Response: Please refer Figure 2 of the revised manuscript. Thank you.

  1. What I think that is very important for us like readers, is to specify in your study, VALUES (medium values for the Mean MPDI - what values are indicating a MPDI<4...or MPDI>14.

Response: It was observed that the lowest mean MPDI value was found to be 3, while the highest was 17.8, with the lowest mean MPDI revealing that there was less variation in the variables from the overall pavement normalized mean values, which indicated that the segment was homogeneous and needed preventive maintenance. Higher mean MPDI reported that the section had a huge deviation in the variables from the mean and required a critical maintenance intervention. Additional text addressing the comment is included in the manuscript. Thank you.

 

  1. You have a big amount of data- but you didn't present values, just the graphs. The data that I'm asking for you are: ---Deflections, Elasticity modulus E (surface, binder, base layers), Traffic values, IRI value, SRT values, rut depth, etc.

Response: The data was presented in the form of graphs to clearly state the inferences from the results. However, the data can be shared upon reasonable request. Thank you.

 

  1. FOR EXAMPLE: You can indicate for each MPDI (<4, 4-7, 7-10, 10-14, >14) the values that you have used (a medium value NOT all the data of course).

Response: The values presented in Section 3.2 were used to estimate MPDI for all the 1781 data points. The maintenance interventions were suggested based on the mean MPDI. Note that one mean MPDI of two different road sections (for example, mean MPDI of 4 for roads A and B) had different values for the study variables. Hence, the means of the variables are only presented in Section 3.2.  However, the data can be shared upon reasonable request. Thank you.