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.

Innovative Concrete Pavement Texture Designs for Traffic Noise Mitigation

Reviewer's feedback:

"Is the paper presented at this conference part of the following article? Sheng, W., & Wang, Y. (2024). Traffic noise mitigation through texture-induced quiet pavement: Analytical modeling and field test. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 137, 104485. " Although the content is interesting and fits in well with the conference scoop, the manuscript requires substantial improvements. The figures are generally difficult to read, and the section detailing the model setup needs further elaboration. Additionally, the corresponding figure should be revised to enhance clarity and readability.

Editorial Decision for Conference Proceedings:

In its current form, this paper can only be recommended for presentation. I advise the authors to carefully address the reviewers' feedback and make the necessary revisions if they wish to have the work considered for publication in the proceedings. Please note that plagiarism checks will be conducted by the editors before final publication of the book as each paper will be awarded a DOI.

Track Leader’s Comments (if any):

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

The approach is very commendable. However, I believe that there are some substantial sytematic errors in the results. First, there seems to be a 10 dB bias between Kohler's results and those of the Hong Kong (HKG). It is not realistic that there could be such a large difference; there must be an error somewhere. My guess is that the HKG data are wrong by a factor of 10 dB, due to some unforeseen problem. Please analyze all your settings. If the paper is rewritten it should replace the frequency spectra with third-octave-band spectra. Furthermore, I cannot believe that there is a correlation between SIL and the elastic modulus of concrete. But the approach is interesting and if the assumed error of 10 dB (??) is resolved, I think that the research should continue with also other 3D-printed surfaces. If you cannot find the reason for the assumed 10 dB error, I recommend using the HK Polytechnic CPX trailer instead.

bottom of page