A Study of the Field Test Method for the Adhesive Performance Evaluation of Self-Adhesive Waterproofing Sheets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented material has a pronounced applied character and is interesting to developers of building materials and methods of anticorrosive protection. There are no serious comments on the manuscript. All the provisions and conclusions are justified and confirmed by practical results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the authors of the article applsci-2538116, we would like to express our sincerest gratitude for your review and approval of our article. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract and Introduction.

·        The introduction provides some background information on the importance of adhesion strength in waterproofing materials and mentions the existing standard for laboratory testing. However, it lacks a comprehensive literature review that discusses prior research and existing methodologies related to adhesion testing for self-adhesive waterproofing sheets.

·        The abstract and introduction outline the use of a field-applicable adhesion measurement device based on the principle of the peel-out test. However, there is limited information on the details of the methodology and the steps involved in the adhesion strength evaluation process.

Materials and methods:

·        The section lacks essential technical details about the developed on-site adhesion measurement equipment, making it difficult to understand the device's construction and functionality.

·        There is no evidence or data presented to validate the accuracy and reliability of the on-site measurement equipment, raising concerns about its effectiveness compared to established laboratory methods.

·        The description of the 90° peel method and modified roller drum peel method is not sufficiently clear, leaving readers with questions about the practical implementation of these techniques.

·        The section does not compare the on-site equipment's performance with existing laboratory testing methods, leaving a gap in understanding how it measures up in terms of accuracy and precision.

·        The section does not adequately address potential limitations or challenges that may arise during on-site measurements, leaving uncertainties about the applicability of the equipment in diverse real-world conditions.

Results and discussion.

·        The authors state that the peel-out test method with fabric tape reinforcement effectively controls variables during adhesion strength measurement. However, could the use of fabric tape potentially introduce any confounding factors that might affect the accuracy of the results?

·        How did fabric tape reinforcement affect the tensile strength of self-adhesive waterproofing sheets?

·        What implications did the distinctive peeling pattern of butyl rubber-based sheets have on adhesive strength measurement?

·        The authors claim that the portable field equipment provides comparable results to the laboratory-based UTM device. Nevertheless, are there any specific environmental factors or limitations of the field equipment that could influence the accuracy of adhesion strength measurements in real-world applications?

·        The authors assert that the peel-out test with fabric tape allows for the assessment of the pure adhesive strength of the polymer adhesive layer. Nevertheless, could the presence of fabric tape have any unintended consequences on the behavior of the self-adhesive waterproofing sheets during actual installation on construction sites?

·        While the comparison between UTM and field equipment shows similar results, the section lacks a discussion on uncertainty analysis or statistical significance, which could further strengthen the findings.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors of the manuscript applsci-2538116 expresses their gratitude for the reviewer's time taken to read and comment on the contents of the article. With much thanks to the reviewer's efforts and contribution, the manuscript was able to improve in clarity and technical details. Please read over the revised version of the manuscript for the details. Please refer to the attached file titled Reviewer Response for detailed responses to the individual comments provided by the reviewer. Thank you kindly.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper establishes a standardized testing method and has been validated through experiments. Overall, it is well written and has promising engineering applications. It is recommended to publish it after minor revisions.

1.In the abstract, there was no quantitative description of the results, only the conclusion that "the results showed similar values, confirming the effectiveness of the method" was given.

2.There are few references and they need to be supplemented and improved.

3.The picture is a bit blurry, and the numbers are a bit unclear, such as Figure 6

4.290 lines still have formatting errors with red strikethrough

5.What is the error of Figure 20?

6.Suggest adding in the conclusion: What are the prospects of this method? What are the limitations or shortcomings?

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The authors of the manuscript applsci-2538116 expresses their gratitude for the reviewer's time taken to read and comment on the contents of the article. With much thanks to the reviewer's efforts and contribution, the manuscript was able to improve in clarity and technical details. Please read over the revised version of the manuscript for the details. Please refer to the attached file titled Reviewer Response for detailed responses to the individual comments provided by the reviewer. Thank you kindly.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have conducted well response