%20(1).png)
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.
Analysis of indoor noise test methods
Reviewer's feedback:
"Although the content is very interesting and fits in well with the conference scoop, the presentation of the article doesn't follow the codes at all. There's no abstract, no conclusion and no references. In its current state, this proposal cannot be retained unless the authors take the time to revise it in its entirety to bring it up to the standards of a scientific article, with an abstract, an introduction setting out the state of the art, the work carried out and then the bibliographic references. " Indoor noise test methods are rarely discussed, therefore the topic of the paper is original. However, the methodology should be detailed and clarified as it presents OBSI and CPX as indoor methods whereas they are outdoor methods. The replica of real road surface is also critical for indoor method and the paper should explain how it was made. Furthermore, the form of the paper should be improved: add an abstract, add references, enlarge the font of the captions in figure 2, fig 3 and fig 4.
Editorial Decision for Conference Proceedings:
It is recommended that authors follow the template, as it already provides a clear structure. Also, add a refernce section.
Track Leader’s Comments (if any):
Please note that some of the track leader’s comments are intended as feedback for future improvements
The paper may be interesting when it is finished. At the moment it seems to be less than half finished. The HTP method is a kind of drum method, but with the drum horizontal and not rotating. Ref should be given to the Purdue University equipment which has been copied here. The HTP results are interesting and also expected, provided the same pavement is mounted on the "lying drum" surface as on the pavement on the road. How is the drum surface constructed? However, the RRT drop method seems to me to be proved by Figure 4 to be invalid (which is expected) and not the opposite, as the correlation with OBSI seems to be opposite. To justify that method much more data must be shown, if available. How long is the surface? How is the tyre loaded? How long measurement time is available, etc, etc. If the paper is not finished, it is worthwile presenting only the HTP vs OBSI and OBSI versus CPX method (ISO 11819-2). But then I strongly recommend comparing the Chinese HTP with the HTP of Purdue, also comparing with Purdue's results, if possible.