top of page

Build it up

You are kindly requested to revise your manuscript and submit the updated version to PFDM 2025 before 15-06-2025.

 

Below, you will find all relevant review comments from:

​

  • Scientific Committee,

  • Track Leaders,

  • The Editorial Team
     

Please consider these carefully in preparing your revised manuscript.Once your revisions are complete, you may submit the updated version using the submission link provided at the bottom of this page.We appreciate your contributions and look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Rolling Resistance optimization for pavement surface a laboratory study

Reviewer's feedback:

The paper is clear and well built. The approach is original and the data presented are of interest. Fig 7 and 8 could be enlarged to facilitate readability. Think about numbering the equations and putting the numbers in the text. Also, I don't understand why the value on the Crr axis starts at 0.1 for the figures from 4 onwards. This makes it difficult to see the slope of the curves, which becomes a constant. Please review!

Editorial Decision for Conference Proceedings:

No additinional comments!

Track Leader’s Comments (if any):

Please note that some of the track leader’s comments are intended as feedback for future improvements

An interesting paper comparing foeld and lab data. Can the authors refer to the Frictiopn After Polishing test to give its proper EN name. The abbreviation FAP is later used. Can the paper clarify whether the texture paramters determied by the ELApws are 2d or 3d. Can they also reference this device. Can further exp[lanation of how the FAP determines a rolling resistance value be given - how is it measured? The findings are interesting and are what would be expected. Its interesting the FAP gave the same levels of friction with extended time and any differences in the mixes occured early life. Did the authors consider any other surface parameter from their testing?

bottom of page