Evaluation of Viscoelastic Adhesion Strength and Stability of Composite Waterproofing Sheet Using Non-Hardening Viscoelastic Synthetic Polymer-Based Rubber Gel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, the authors evaluate viscoelastic adhesion strength standards and stability of waterproofing sheets using a non-hardening viscoelastic synthetic polymer-based rubber gel. This study is exciting and would appeal to readers in the field. However, the manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors, which makes it very difficult for the readers to understand what the authors are trying to communicate. The authors are therefore advised to proofread and resolve any grammatical errors thoroughly. The authors can also use professional help to make these corrections. Since these are significant flaws and the issues are persistent throughout the manuscript, the authors are advised to consider these as major revisions and do it before submitting. Without these improvements, it would not be possible for reviewers to review this submission accurately. Please resubmit after major grammar revisions and improve the language quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
The authors of the Article Applsci -1922169 would like to extend thoughts of gratitude to the reviewers who took time out of their busy schedule to comment and revise this manuscript. Thank to the reviewers’ efforts, the article has been improved substantially. The authors hope that the revisions made in this version of the draft meet the requirements on the points of amendment made by the reviewers.
Reviewer 1
Comment 1
The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors, which makes it very difficult for the readers to understand what the authors are trying to communicate. The authors are therefore advised to proofread and resolve any grammatical errors thoroughly. The authors can also use professional help to make these corrections. Since these are significant flaws and the issues are persistent throughout the manuscript, the authors are advised to consider these as major revisions and do it before submitting. Without these improvements, it would not be possible for reviewers to review this submission accurately. Please resubmit after major grammar revisions and improve the language quality of the manuscript.
Response 1
The authors have looked over the manuscript extensively with the help of a native English speaker to revise the manuscript. The authors would sincerely appreciate the time for the reviewer to once again look over the revised version of the manuscript.
Extensive changes have been made to the introduction and the results section as well as other parts of the article, making sure to remove grammatical errors and incoherent syntax.
Reviewer 2 Report
-Some typo errors in the article should be corrected.
-It is recommended to add some suggestions for future works in this area to improve the conclusion
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment 1
-Some typo errors in the article should be corrected.
Response 1
The authors have looked over the manuscript extensively with the help of a native English speaker to revise the manuscript. The authors would sincerely appreciate the time for the reviewer to once again look over the revised version of the manuscript.
Extensive changes have been made to the introduction and the results section as well as other parts of the article, making sure to remove grammatical errors and incoherent syntax.
Comment 2
-It is recommended to add some suggestions for future works in this area to improve the conclusion
Response 2
Suggestions for future works to improve the quality of the proposed test method and research has been included in the revised version of the article. Please refer to the new version’s
Lines 528-541 and the Conclusion section
Reviewer 3 Report
Review report on
Evaluation of Viscoelastic Adhesion Strength Standards and Stability of Composite Waterproofing Sheet using Non-hardening Viscoelastic Synthetic Polymer-based Rubber Gel
In the current manuscript, ‘viscoelastic adhesion performance’ and ‘test method to evaluate it’ as differentiated unique quality indicators by examining the applicability of domestic and foreign similar quality test methods and quality standards for non-curable NHV-SPRG composite waterproofing sheet were suggested. The viscoelastic adhesion strength was measured using the proposed test method, and the derived viscoelastic adhesion strength (quality standard) and effectiveness were confirmed, and statistical analysis was performed to determine the correlation between the adhesion strength and the adhesion stability on the composite waterproof sheet material was carried out.
The paper is well-organized and includes new contributions with good merits for publication. I humbly ask the authors to carefully read the attached concerns and make major modifications to enhance the presentation of their paper.
- It is suggested to add more in-depth explanation of the model, its justification and more discussions on the results.
- What is the main objective behind the current study? It is beneficial for the readers to add more explanations about the novel contribution of this method from theoretical/experimental viewpoints.
- The information and data presented in Table 1 should be appropriately referred to their corresponding references.
- Please add some explanations and if possible some related references to justify the applicability of the considered material in industrial applications.
- How were the authors able to compute the coefficient of variation using Eq. (2)? This equation should be accurately interpreted.
- The authors must explicitly declare the assumptions and limitations of their model. It seems it's application is quite restricted.
- The literature review is inadequate and one-sided. There are contributions about “Viscoelastic materials” and their mechanical properties which should be mentioned. The authors should appropriately extend this section by discussing more relevant works focusing on different methods and models in the literature. For example, it is suggested to read and discuss about the following relevant works:
- Kumhar, R., Kundu, S., Gupta, S. Modelling of Love Waves in Fluid Saturated Porous Viscoelastic Medium resting over an Exponentially Graded Inhomogeneous Half-space Influenced by Gravity. Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, 2020; 6(3): 517-530.
and other related works.
- The paper should be carefully double-checked from grammatical point of view.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The paper is well-organized and includes new contributions with good merits for publication. I humbly ask the authors to carefully read the attached concerns and make major modifications to enhance the presentation of their paper.
Comment 1
- It is suggested to add more in-depth explanation of the model, its justification and more discussions on the results.
Response 1
In-depth and clearer explanations of the proposed model (evaluation regime) have been included in the revised version of the article, Lines: 127 to 173, 227 – 254, and 281-288.
Comment 2
- What is the main objective behind the current study? It is beneficial for the readers to add more explanations about the novel contribution of this method from theoretical/experimental viewpoints.
Response 2
”The purpose of the article has been to state that NHV-SPRG composite waterproofing, mainly due to the viscoelastic nature of the non-hardening component, cannot be tested for their adhesive strength using the conventional methods outlined the example test methods of KS F 4934 and KS F 2400 among others. It is the limitation of the presented model in this study to state that a new adhesive strength evaluation method, such as the one demonstrated in this study in some format of this Viscoelastic Adhesion Strength and Stability Test Method should be developed and practiced in order to comprehensively evaluate material with distinct viscoelastic properties such as NHV-SPRG composite waterproofing sheets.”
This line has been included in Lines 528 to 541 in the revised article.
Furthermore revisions have been made in the Introduction section Lines 64 – 96 and 139 -173 to address and amend on the lack of clarity on the purpose and the proposed contributions of this study.
Comment 3
- The information and data presented in Table 1 should be appropriately referred to their corresponding references.
Response 3
Each NHV-SPRG type used in this experiment originate from manufacturers from Korea that are partaking in this experimental project to assist in the development of the proposed test method
This line has been included in the revised article Lines 263 to 266.
References are difficult to include for material properties of the specimen types used for this study as some of this information may not be readily available for public to protect the rights of the manufacturers. We hope this revision suffices in addressing the reviewer’s concern on this point.
Comment 4
- Please add some explanations and if possible some related references to justify the applicability of the considered material in industrial applications.
Response 4
Explanations and addition of literature review in Lines 64 – 96 have been included in the revised version of the article. A detailed response is, again based on the purpose of stating the necessity to develop a new testing method specifically for NHV-SPRG type of waterproofing sheets. The briefly paraphrase, by using conventional testing methods that only assess minimum required adhesive strength, an empirical evaluation, particularly a comparative evaluation of NHV-SPRG composite waterproofing sheets to other types of composite waterproofing sheets, is unfairly conducted (seeing as how there is only one method of adhesive strength testing for what are essentially two very different types of materials). As an effort to contribute towards a more impartial evaluation, a new evaluation model such as one demonstrated here could be help to industrial applications.
Comment 5
- How were the authors able to compute the coefficient of variation using Eq. (2)? This equation should be accurately interpreted.
Response 5
Equation 2 (now revised to Equation 1) simply shows the process of first 1) finding the standard deviation of the load values across the tested specimen surface (from intervals of P1 (30mm point) to P10 (120 mm point). After which the this value is divided by the mean of all of the loads (P1 to P10).
Explanation has been clarified in the Lines 354 to 355 in the revised article.
Comment 6
- The authors must explicitly declare the assumptions and limitations of their model. It seems it's application is quite restricted.
Response 6
Limitations and assumptions of the model, as well as related suggestions for future works to improve the quality of the proposed test method and research has been included in the revised version of the article. Please refer to the new version’s
Lines 528-541 and the Conclusion section
Comment 7
- The literature review is inadequate and one-sided. There are contributions about “Viscoelastic materials” and their mechanical properties which should be mentioned. The authors should appropriately extend this section by discussing more relevant works focusing on different methods and models in the literature. For example, it is suggested to read and discuss about the following relevant works:
- Kumhar, R., Kundu, S., Gupta, S. Modelling of Love Waves in Fluid Saturated Porous Viscoelastic Medium resting over an Exponentially Graded Inhomogeneous Half-space Influenced by Gravity. Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, 2020; 6(3): 517-530.
and other related works.
Response 7
Lines 84 and 96 have been added to the revised manuscript (including the reference recommended by the reviewer). However it is the hope of the authors to notify the reviewer that while there are extensive number of references related to viscoelastic material, there aren’t many that specifically deal with adhesion properties for viscoelastic materials AS waterproofing sheets. This is a significant distinction as commonly investigated properties such as rheological properties, viscosity, energy dissipation, are not applicable to the scope of the investigation that the authors intend for this study.
Comment 8
- The paper should be carefully double-checked from grammatical point of view.
Response 8
The authors have looked over the manuscript extensively with the help of a native English speaker to revise the manuscript. The authors would sincerely appreciate the time for the reviewer to once again look over the revised version of the manuscript.
Extensive changes have been made to the introduction and the results section as well as other parts of the article, making sure to remove grammatical errors and incoherent syntax.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revisions. Unfortunately, even after the extensive changes that you have incorporated, the article has significant flaws with regards to the language and therefore requires extensive proofreading and correction by professionals.
Since there are a lot of incorrect and incomprehensible sentences throughout, I would add a few here (There are so many more, but I will be only adding a few examples) to prove my point.
These sentences below are erroneous.
1) Recently, a non-hardening type synthetic polymer-based rubber gel (hereinafter 19 referred to as NHV-SPRG) composite waterproofing sheet is using on construction site as a new 20 waterproofing technology.
2) Recently, in construction sites, composite waterproofing sheets reinforced by laminating a coating and sheet material to 50 replace the existing single ply waterproofing layer attracting attention as a relatively new 52 waterproofing technology
3) Based on this method of applying 180° tensile method of peeling resistance performance test can 234 be cited as a method for evaluating the resistance (viscosity) of the viscoelastic gel material against 235 the force of the NHV-SPRG composite waterproof sheet flowing down from the vertical wall in the 236 direction of gravity. - This is an example of a sentence that makes no sense whatsoever.
4) The list goes on further.
Major comment: As mentioned in the last review round, the authors need to patiently and thoroughly examine the entire manuscript and get rid of the plethora of errors before resubmitting. I would strongly suggest that the authors use professional proofreading or use a specialist (an editor with knowledge of this field will need to check the overall structure, flow, and clarity of expression) editing service like the one mentioned here MDPI Author Services .
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors appropriately addressed the previous concerns and this version is now recommended for publication.
