Determination of Partial Depth Repair Size for Spalling of Jointed Concrete Pavements Using the Impact Echo Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors evaluate the damage extent of the slab from the perspective of relative dynamic modulus, the analysis and description are not clear enough in some places and need to be clarified and simplified, and the paper needs to be minor revised. My specific comments are as follows:

1.       Page 3, line 123, the position and font format of the formula need to be adjusted. What is the basis for selecting the maximum and minimum acceleration and voltage values in equation 1? 

2.       Page 4, line 166, According to what method to determine the correction factor?

3.       Page10, line 471, “In this study, in order to make the pavement structure sustainable by minimizingthe distress propagating from the boundary of the PDR”, There are misspelled words that need to be corrected.

4.       The impact echo (IE) method is not ideal for the test results of shallow surface defects and deep small defects of slabs. How to avoid related problems in this paper?

5.       Most of the references in the article are too old, and it is recommended to cite some literatures in similar years and fields, and the format of the references should be consistent.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

·     I enjoyed reading this paper and the topic is interesting! The paper provides reasonable criteria for determining the size for PDR , taking the assessment from qualitative base into more quantitative damage assessment. Here are some comments to improve the paper:

·        Table 2: Define the meaning of all letters under the table. Also the unit for admixtures is typically “ml” or “ fl oz”.

·        Font size and style change across the document (e.g text under equations). Use uniform font size and style.

·        Equation 3: Unit for density should be kg/m3

·        The authors should discuss the reasoning behind using the dynamic modulus as a damage indicator for concrete.

·        Test Results: The authors should compare the results from this study with the results from literature and provide in-depth analysis.  

·        Section 3, page 6, Lines 290-292: The authors earlier indicated that the dynamic modulus predicted using Eq. (3) does not coincide exactly with the actual dynamic modulus. Thus, the authors should use terms such as “relative dynamic modulus” as this is not the exact dynamic modulus for concrete, and they should use “estimated” rather than “measured”.

·        Section 4.1 and Table 5:  The authors should discuss the reasoning behind testing the cores at dry and saturated conditions, what is the authors’ hypotheses ?

·        Results discussion in general should include comparison to results from similar studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf