Repetition in the abstract and introduction not good writing e.g. "Recently, a deflection-based design approach has been comprehensively reviewed by the DOH for the possible adoption of local design standard and practice. One of the key reasons was that Thailand road authorities considered the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) for the new construction and rehabilitation of asphalt pavement. The FWD deflection measurement is a reliable method to assess the structural integrity and bear-ing capacity of pavement system."

Page 2 - this could have been inserted in a table: "Five asphalt surface thicknesses included 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 mm. Five crushed rock base thicknesses included 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 mm. Five soil-aggregate subbase thicknesses included 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 mm. Five selected material thicknesses included 0, 100, 200, 300, and 400 mm. It was note-worthy that a minimum thickness of the asphalt surface and aggregate base was respectively 50 mm and 100 mm according to AI (1982) and AASHTO (1993)."

3.1. The title should be "Normalised deflection - pavement structural thicknesses relationship "

I am not sure what to make of the conclusions. It's quite confusing what the conclusions actually are. Examples: "Comparison results suggested that most semi-rigid pavement data were scatter along the DOH design curve, while all conventional asphalt pavement data fell above the DOH design curve". Question: what are we to learn from this? Another example: "Despite of some dispersions in the data, the implication of do/do,DOH could be taken into account for asphalt pavement condition monitoring and assessment based on surface deflection measurement." This is confusing. What does this mean? What conclusion is the reader to draw from this?

Overall, the paper is very thin on literature with several missed opportunities to cite important work.

Several grammar mistakes (including syntax) in the paper.