Evaluation of the Effect of Average Annual Temperatures in Slovakia between 1971 and 2020 on Stresses in Rigid Pavements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is more like a case study and does not have any scientific soundness. This can be published in a conference proceeding.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, reactioun is in attached fiele.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The first statistical part presenting the evolution of temperatures in the regions of central Europe is interesting. Several Laws have been established at different altitudes. However, I have a little trouble understanding the articulation with the second part, which is more mechanical. how is this evolution taken into account in mechanical computation ? especially since the model used is an elastic model. Finally, what is the use of the study by fem? I think it is not so clear in the paper.Line 249 : "M31" ?
Author Response
Dear reviewer, reactioun is in attached fiele.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This work studied a very interesting topic. There are many publications studied the effect of temperature on themal stree of PCC pavement, the conclusion is well known. When introducing the clamite change in this issue, the contribution of this work improved. I suggest major revison.
- Abstract. Authors used too many 'necessary' to highlight the necessity of this study rather than how they conducted such study. Please revise the Abstract.
- Fig.3(a) is not clear, the details can not be observed, as well as Fig.4
- Section 3.1. Author mentioned 'altitude of the designed pavement'. However, there is no data related to pavements, Fig.5 noly shows a correlation between year and temperature.
- Fig.7 could be improved.
- Fig.12. Please reproduct the image since it is very unclear.
- Basically, this study consists with two parts. The first one define how temperature raise during the period, and the second one calculates the themal stress. I suggest that the author compress the part about CE temperature change and clarify the change of pavement temperature in this part, rather than just discussing the regional climate.
- The manuscript was organized with too many titles and sections.
- The conclusion is too long. It is suggested to list the main findingsThe conclusion is too lengthy. It is suggested to list the main findings. There is no need to repeat the work and methods used in this paper.
- How this work helps the design of the PCC pavement? It should be more specific.
- What is the author's consideration on the design of PCC pavement in the future when the temperature in CE area continues to increase.
Author Response
The authors' response to the review is attached in the file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript shows the consequences of the increase of the temperatures in Central Europe (due to the climate change) on the concrete pavement design. It is an interesting approach but the paper needs some corrections.
Points are commented as they appear in the text. The most important points are commented longer and emphasized.
Lines 17-20. The first sentence of the abstract indicated that the scientific community in Central Europe is worried about the increase on temperatures and their effect in pavement structures. Then, in next sentence, it is specified that in the road field, this is important for pavements. It was already said. Do authors want to write “...to changing the stresses induced in structures” in lines 18-19. Please, correct these sentences.
Lines 33-34. It would be adequate to introduce some references to support that the global warming is a worldwide problem.
Lines 57-58. It is indicated that authors present their 25-year research activity in this article, and they cite two of their references. So, is this paper a summary of other papers? Is there a novelty on it? This must be clearly exposed.
Lines 61-65. Authors are presenting the parts of the paper, and they indicate some references. It is not logical. They establish the sections of the paper. Then, if references are needed, they should be introduced in their adequate position.
Line 68. Correct it: “According to [15], Earth’s temperature...
Line 81. Provide the reference for the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Line 89-90. Provide some references to support the idea that the numerical modelling is the most appropriate method. Perhaps it is the most widely used. Consider rewriting the sentence.
Line 94. FEM: Abbreviations must be explained the first time they are employed. Once again, why is it necessary to introduce a reference to indicate that FEM is going to be used. To support its employment? Then, it should be indicated that other authors also conducted it.
Line 127. Include some values of the maximum concrete temperature at placement and their references.
Line 137. The expression “According to the authors’ research, presented in [30]. The 20th century...” is confusing. It seems that authors of this paper also published reference [30]. However, when looking at the references, it is not theirs. It is a book of facts. Therefore, the way of citing this book could be different: “The 20th century CE temperature....starting in the 1970s [30].”
Line 176. After discussing about the geographic centre of Europe, it would be convenient to state that the analysis of this paper is focused in Slovakia, as an example of a Central Europe country. Otherwise, there is a gap between the discussion about the centre of Europe and, suddenly, the analysis is installed in Slovakia without introduction.
Lines 188-190. It is not necessary to comment the life of Charles E. Spearman, as it has not interest in the paper. It is preferable to omit this sentence.
Line 197. As stated in the journal’s template, equations are introduced as Equations, not formulas. Hence, the sentence could be rewritten as: “Given a pair of random variables (X,Y), Equation (1) is the formula for the correlation coefficient R(X,Y):”. At this point, what is presented in Equation (1), the Spearman’s correlation coefficient or Pearson’s correlation coefficient? It is not clear. If both are similar, then, indicate it clearly.
Line 216: Similarly, conclude the sentence with “...as shown in Equation (2)”. Moreover, with regard with Equation 4, why is the temperature measured twice at 21:00? It gives more values to that value.
Table 2. The caption says that the average annual temperature is calculated...according to Figure 3, which shows a map of Central Europe. Please, correct this mistake. Similarly, correct it at the last column of Table 2 (the title).
Line 263. Examples of employment of JPCP in other countries can be included, such as in Moldova (Pérez-Acebo et al. 2019) and Romania (Plescan et al. 2021).
Line 269-271. Perhaps, it would be interesting to explain how the rigid pavements works, comparing them with flexible pavements.
Line 275. It should be indicated the first time the standard TP 098 is mentioned that is the Slovak standard for rigid pavement design.
Equation (4). None of the variables of the equation are defined. Please, define them.
Lines 301-311. Perhaps a figure is convenient to show how the procedure is.
Line 307. Instead of formula, write “Equation”.
Equation (5). Define all the variables. They can be known for authors, but readers outside Slovakia do not know them. Define the variables in Equation (6) too. It is more convenient to firstly describe the variables of Equation (6), and then, comment which the usual values to be introduced are.
Line 334. Include the reference of STN 73 6114;1997, as in the title of Figure 9.
Line 339-340. This is another misleading sentence. Did the authors presented the results of their many years of research in the field of objectification of the changing climatic conditions? Where? In another publication? If so, include the reference.
Line 368. Include some references of those methods and processes that are available.
Line 436-437. I do not agree with that fact. Why do motorways have a longer service life and lower maintenance costs? They could have longer service life is they are design with “generosity” and then, lower maintenance costs would be required. But that is not a general trend. They would have a similar service life as other roads.
Line 443-452 and Table 3. Do authors mean that there is a bituminous layer under the concrete slabs? This is really strange. Normally, gravel crushed stone is placed under Cement Concrete slabs, or, if the traffic is high, cement-treated bases. It is a novelty for me. I have seen bituminous layers over concrete pavements, but not the pavement structure described in Table 3. In any case, what does L in AC 16 L mean?
Line 445. Do authors mean surface course with “bearing” course? If so, please, use surface.
Lines 583-588. Perhaps, a table would be more adequate to all those data.
REFERENCES
Pérez-Acebo et al. (2019). Rigid pavement performance models by means of Markov Chains with half-year step time. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 20 (7), 830-843.
Plescan et al. (2021). Sensitivity analysis of rigid pavement design based on semi-empirical methods: Romanian case study. Symmetry, 13 (2), 168.
Author Response
The authors' response to the review is attached in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been improved a lot to consider it for a standard journal like this one. Two improvements could be done.
One: Please discuss the literature more elaborately using more examples. Most, if not all, of the references used are local to authors. Please use some international references. One example, pavement design – materials, analysis and highways, mcgraw hill.
Two. The conclusion section (Summary and Outlook Section) can be rewritten to concisely give the conclusion. In current state, this section became a discussion section. Or, a new conclusion section can be added.
Author Response
A response to the review is in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Changes have been made. The paper seems clearer now.Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his assessment of their work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for addressing all my comments, I am okay with the current version.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer once again for his valuable advice, comments, and recommendation.
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors have conducted most of the proposed modifications. However, there are some points that still need corrections.
Lines 121-124. I appreciate the new explanation about hot temperatures when constructing concrete pavements. Nevertheless, a reference temperature for not suggesting working in hot days will be adequate.
Equation (2). After the explanation, I can understand why the temperature measured at 21:00 is introduced twice in the calculation of the average. It is not very accurate, but I suppose that is what authors have. However, the explanation given in the reply must be introduced in the text. Readers should also know why temperature at 21:00 is introduced twice.
Equations (4) and (5). I do not agree with authors. All the variables are not explained. For example, from Eq. (4), what is σ,DA,115kN and σT,115kN? Perhaps for authors it is obvious, but not all the readers have the same standards. Similarly, in Eq. (5), what is ECC,T? Do authors mean EC,T, which is described later? The variable hc is defined, the proposed slab thickness, but the units must be also indicated, because perhaps the equation is not dimensionally coherent? My suggestion: explain all the variables after the equations, with the definition and the units, and indicate the usual values that can/may be introduced.
Table 3. If the “L” in AC 16 L means “Ložná” in Slovak, it is not adequate. The latter for indicating the base layers of a pavement is BASE, according to EN 13108-1, which is the standard for the European Union.
Typo in lines 95-96. Please, remove “Perez-Acebo 1” because reference 3-5 are not from this author.
Author Response
The authors are again grateful to the reviewer for valuable advice and comments on the manuscript. Other comments have also been incorporated into the article. The authors have also responded to questions in the following text. We appreciate the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The variables of equations (4), (5), and (6) are still not conveniently defined. I think that it is better to define the variables after presenting with the structure “where XX is..., XY is...” as it is conducted after equation (1).
For example, in Equation (4), ξi is not defined. It is only commented after equation (5). It is difficult to follow the definition of the variables. It is better to clearly define them, without commenting them, and then, introduce the comments. Authors must take into account that different pavement design guides are used in other countries. I tried to follow the design methodology of the Slovak standard and it was tedious and difficult. Please, define first the variables, then, comment them.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have accepted and implemented all your requests. We hope that our article can be published on the basis of your positive review.
