Influence of Traffic Characteristics on Pavement Performance of Parking Lots
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Method not clearly presented, results in number and quality insufficient
some points for improvement :
- add reference to AASHO
- Describe acronym ANN at the beginning
- Figure 2: type of loading ?, load ? ; arrows logic comprehension problem
- Figure 3: distance from what? the car park is 300m, the graph 30m? lack of unity
- in conclusion : term of "Binary logistic regression". Lack of detail on the method, results not sufficiently consistent
Author Response
Responses to reviewer comments:
- Method not clearly presented, results in number and quality insufficient
Answer: A schematic diagram (new figure 3) has been added that summarized the applied methodology.
- some points for improvement : add reference to AASHO
Answer: Reference added
- Describe acronym ANN at the beginning
Answer: All acronyms have been reviewed and described at their first mention in the text
- Figure 2: type of loading ?, load ? ; arrows logic comprehension problem
Answer: Figure missing have been improved. However, Arrows in the Figure describe the hierarchical interrelationships between the different level of factors which finally describe the target variable (PCI)
- Figure 3: distance from what? the car park is 300m, the graph 30m? lack of unity
Answer: The x-axis represents the parking ID not the distance, this has been corrected
- in conclusion : term of "Binary logistic regression". Lack of detail on the method, results not sufficiently consistent
Answer: This model here is the standard Binary logistic regression applied with the assist of the SPSS. However, a definition of the model has been added to the methodology
Other improvements to the paper:
- Figure 1 has been redrawn to be easier to understand. In the left part of the new Figure 1, a drawing shows the dimensions of the whole parking lot, the shape of parking, the location of the entrance gate, and the direction of cars entry from the right. The right part of Figure 1 (which is a continuation of the right part), shows the mechanism for dividing the parking lot into smaller segments.
- A site photo has been added. This research is part of a rehabilitation project of the same parking lot which was completed in July 2022 with a new layer of asphalt currently. Unfortunately, the archived photos do not include a proper photo showing the entire site with surface distresses, except the one I have added to the text. Generally, I would like to concentrate, in this research on the methodology and results more than the case study itself.
- Brief statistics about the important factors in the text have been added in the new Table 1. Moreover, a new Figure (3) has been added to show the data distribution along the parking sections for Traffic volume and the number of parking maneuvers. While speed profile is already presented in the text. All are also discussed in the text. A description of the figures has also been discussed in the text
- A schematic diagram (new figure 4) has been added that summarized the applied methodology.
- I have added a new Figure 7 to present the measured PCI values for the 3 significant distresses along the parking lot.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article lacks specific evidence of the authors' research. There are no photos or drawings of car parks. No damage was identified on the pavement and the methods of their examination and determination were not provided.
It is not directly described how the homogeneous sections were determined (fig. 1).
In graphical form - graphs should be shown traffic studies, traffic distribution, etc.
Formulas and algorithms used to calculate PCI should be provided.
Author Response
Responses to reviewer comments:
- The article lacks specific evidence of the authors' research. There are no photos or drawings of car parks. No damage was identified on the pavement and the methods of their examination and determination were not provided.
Answer:
- Figure 1 has been redrawn to be easier to understand. In the left part of the new Figure 1, a drawing shows the dimensions of the whole parking lot, the shape of parking, the location of the entrance gate, and the direction of cars entry from the right. The right part of Figure 1 (which is a continuation of the right part), shows the mechanism for dividing the parking lot into smaller segments.
- A site photo has been added. This research is part of a rehabilitation project of the same parking lot which was completed in July 2022 with a new layer of asphalt currently. Unfortunately, the archived photos do not include a proper photo showing the entire site with surface distresses, except the one I have added to the text. Generally, I would like to concentrate, in this research on the methodology and results more than the case study itself.
- A schematic diagram (new figure 4) has been added that summarized the applied methodology.
- I have added a new Figure 7 to present the measured PCI values for the 3 significant distresses along the parking lot.
- It is not directly described how the homogeneous sections were determined (fig. 1).
Answer: Spatially homogeneous. The smaller the spatial section, the greater the homogeneity of the elements within it, and this is what is meant by homogeneous sections in the text. While the 10-meter-long, 7-meter-wide section has roughly similar parking activities and surface distresses, while it is large enough to be analyzed. However, Figure 1 has also been improved for easier understanding. However, to avoid the confusion, I omitted the word “homogeneous” from the text.
- In graphical form - graphs should be shown traffic studies, traffic distribution, etc.
Answer: A brief statistics about the important factors in the text have been added in the new Table 1. Moreover, a new Figure (1) has been added to show the data distribution along the parking sections for Traffic volume and the number of parking maneuvers. While speed profile is already presented in the text. All are also discussed in the text.
- Formulas and algorithms used to calculate PCI should be provided.
Answer: The PCI calculation follows the Pavement Maintenance Management manual. However, more details and formulas have been added
Reviewer 3 Report
The proposed research is significant as it reviews critical hazards and impacts of traffic loads on asphalt pavement parking lots. The manuscript can be highly refereed for future studies. The research proposal, targets, literature, discussion, and summary are well presented.
To be left to the researchers’ decision, the research would be more greatly contributed to the pavement structure and deterioration field if figures and highlighting drawings from the selected research site and deteriorated pavement structures were considered to be added in the manuscript for clearer visuality and future experimental studies reference.
All the best,
Author Response
Answer: The following improvements have been made to the paper:
- Figure 1 has been redrawn to be easier to understand. In the left part of the new Figure 1, a drawing shows the dimensions of the whole parking lot, the shape of parking, the location of the entrance gate, and the direction of cars entry from the right. The right part of Figure 1 (which is a continuation of the right part), shows the mechanism for dividing the parking lot into smaller segments.
- A site photo has been added. This research is part of a rehabilitation project of the same parking lot which was completed in July 2022 with a new layer of asphalt currently. Unfortunately, the archived photos do not include a proper photo showing the entire site with surface distresses, except the one I have added to the text. Generally, I would like to concentrate, in this research on the methodology and results more than the case study itself.
- Brief statistics about the important factors in the text have been added in the new Table 1. Moreover, a new Figure (3) has been added to show the data distribution along the parking sections for Traffic volume and the number of parking maneuvers. While speed profile is already presented in the text. All are also discussed in the text. A description of the figures has also been discussed in the text
- A schematic diagram (new figure 4) has been added that summarized the applied methodology.
- I have added a new Figure 7 to present the measured PCI values for the 3 significant distresses along the parking lot.
Reviewer 4 Report
This article presents interesting results of a research about an important topic. The article is well written and the approach is innovative. Therefore, I recommend this article to be published after a minor revision:
* There are several typos that must be corrected. For example: in line 31 of page 1 “traverse” instead of “transverse”; in line 76 of page 2 “etc” instead of “etc.”; in line 247 of page 7 “ration” instead of “ratio”. Moreover, there is an unnecessary blank space between two words in line 144 of page 4 “70- 85”; and unnecessary double blank spaces between two words in line 94 of page 2, in line 179 of page 4, and in line 331 of page 9. Please, recheck the entire article.
* There are several abbreviations that are mentioned without explaining the meaning. The meaning of all the abbreviations must be described when mentioned for first time.
* If the parking lot is not symmetric (e.g. just one entrance gate not in the middle, etc.), it would be better if a complete schematic diagram is included in Figure 1 and then a zoom like the one presented in Figure 1. A complete schematic diagram would be also useful to indicate the part of the parking lot that has only one parking side.
* It would be interesting if a picture of the parking lot as well as pictures of some of the different distress types found are shown.
* Statistics about the average of cars using the parking lot and the hours should be provided, as well as the location/university of the parking lot under study.
* In line 131 of page 3 it is necessary to mention which are the “working days of a week”.
* The initial defects for all the sections were determined/quantified before starting the data collection for this study?
* Did the authors perform an analysis to establish that the total sampling time selected for the data collection is appropriate?
* It seems like Figure 2 is incomplete, some words on the bottom parts of the squares of “Level 1” and “Level 2” are cut.
* It would be very useful if a schematic diagram of the complete methodology is included in Section 3.
* In Table 1, the parameter “Parking manoeuvres” is total or average for different periods of time?, please explain. It would be useful if the total time to obtain those results is indicated in the caption of the Table.
* The PCIs for the sections ID shown in Table 1 were 100, close to 100 or at least good (85-100) before starting with the experiments/data collection? That reference would be important to be indicated.
* Is it possible to extend the Table 1 for all the sections of the parking lot including the PCIs before and after the experiments and include a schematic diagram of all the sections colored with different colors and intensities according to the distress types and PCIs defined? For example, “pothole” can be indicated in intense red color for PCI from 0-10 (failed) and in this way reducing the intensity of the red color until a very light red color for PCI from 85-100 (good). Then, the same procedure for other distress types, for example “depression” in green color, “alligator cr” in blue color, etc.
* In Figure 3, the units for the parameter “distance” are not indicated.
Author Response
Responses to reviewer comments:
- There are several typos that must be corrected. For example: in line 31 of page 1 “traverse” instead of “transverse”; in line 76 of page 2 “etc” instead of “etc.”; in line 247 of page 7 “ration” instead of “ratio”. Moreover, there is an unnecessary blank space between two words in line 144 of page 4 “70- 85”; and unnecessary double blank spaces between two words in line 94 of page 2, in line 179 of page 4, and in line 331 of page 9. Please, recheck the entire article.
Answer: All suggested corrections have been made and a full scan has been made for similar typos.
- There are several abbreviations that are mentioned without explaining the meaning. The meaning of all the abbreviations must be described when mentioned for first time.
Answer: Abbreviations have been checked and corrected.
- If the parking lot is not symmetric (e.g. just one entrance gate not in the middle, etc.), it would be better if a complete schematic diagram is included in Figure 1 and then a zoom like the one presented in Figure 1. A complete schematic diagram would be also useful to indicate the part of the parking lot that has only one parking side.
Answer: Figure 1 has been redrawn to be easier to understand. In the left part of the new Figure 1, a drawing shows the dimensions of the whole parking lot, the shape of parking, the location of the entrance gate, and the direction of cars entry from the right. The right part of Figure 1 (which is a continuation of the right part), shows the mechanism for dividing the parking lot into smaller segments.
The figure also shows the "parking lot with only one side". However, it is worth to mention that the number of sections is 49, while the 59 in the text was a typo.
- It would be interesting if a picture of the parking lot as well as pictures of some of the different distress types found are shown.
Answer: This research is part of a rehabilitation project of the same parking lot which was completed in July 2022 with a new layer of asphalt currently. Unfortunately, the archived photos do not include a proper photo showing the entire site with surface distresses, except the one I have added to the text. Generally, I would like to concentrate, in this research on the methodology and results more than the case study itself.
- * Statistics about the average of cars using the parking lot and the hours should be provided, as well as the location/university of the parking lot under study.
Answer: Brief statistics about the important factors in the text have been added in the new Table 1. Moreover, a new Figure (3) has been added to show the data distribution along the parking sections for Traffic volume and the number of parking maneuvers. While speed profile is already presented in the text. All are also discussed in the text.
The University of the case study is Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan/ Jordan, I added that to the text. However, I was advised not to put the name of the university in the text?! As, again, the concentration is for the methodology and results.
- In line 131 of page 3 it is necessary to mention which are the “working days of a week”.
Answer: Working days and hours have been added to the text.
- The initial defects for all the sections were determined/quantified before starting the data collection for this study?
Answer: Surface defects were measured by the traditional manual method with a group of engineers during weekends when there are no traffic activities, while traffic data were collected during working days as mentioned in the text, if I understood your question correctly?!
- Did the authors perform an analysis to establish that the total sampling time selected for the data collection is appropriate?
Answer: Parking activities mostly occur during work days, while it is non-existent or few during weekends and semesters' holiday. Of course, they may vary slightly from day to day and from one semester to another. Therefore, a random working week is chosen during the fall semester 2022, as it is assumed to represent the normal average of traffic, and it is averaged for a week for more accuracy.
- It seems like Figure 2 is incomplete, some words on the bottom parts of the squares of “Level 1” and “Level 2” are cut.
Answer: This mistake has been addressed
- It would be very useful if a schematic diagram of the complete methodology is included in Section 3.
Answer: A schematic diagram (new figure 4) has been added that summarized the applied methodology.
- In Table 1, the parameter “Parking manoeuvres” is total or average for different periods of time?, please explain. It would be useful if the total time to obtain those results is indicated in the caption of the Table.
Answer: The final data in the text represent the average number of parking maneuvers per day (8 working hours). It is worth to note that the data is recorded for every 10-meter-wide section that accommodates approximately 5 vehicles, and this explains the sometimes-high number of maneuvers during only 8 hours of a working day. However, I explained this in the text.
- The PCIs for the sections ID shown in Table 1 were 100, close to 100 or at least good (85-100) before starting with the experiments/data collection? That reference would be important to be indicated.
Answer: The PCI numerical indicators is summarized in the "Data description" section. If I correctly understood your question
- Is it possible to extend the Table 1 for all the sections of the parking lot including the PCIs before and after the experiments and include a schematic diagram of all the sections colored with different colors and intensities according to the distress types and PCIs defined? For example, “pothole” can be indicated in intense red color for PCI from 0-10 (failed) and in this way reducing the intensity of the red color until a very light red color for PCI from 85-100 (good). Then, the same procedure for other distress types, for example “depression” in green color, “alligator cr” in blue color, etc.
Answer: I have added a new Figure 7 to present the measured PCI values for the 3 significant distresses along the parking lot.
- In Figure 3, the units for the parameter “distance” are not indicated.
Answer: The x-axis represents the parking ID not the distance, this has been corrected
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Modifications and suggestions have been correctly applied.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been completed, I have no comments.
