Study of the Kinetics of Adhesive Bond Formation Using the Ultrasonic Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       The title of the paper sounds redundant. The word “study” appears two times in the title.

 

2.       The abstract is vague. The authors addressed the issue of adhesive bounding inspection by means of UT in a general way. The subject is very wide, depending on the material properties, surface roughness, type of bonding, etc., the subject and the challenge for inspection can change completely. In addition, the abstract shows several mechanical strength values without introducing the goal and contribution of the paper. The abstract must be rewritten.

 

3.       Introduction: The introduction is disproportionately general. The section is long, and it is not clear what are the goals of the work in the intro section. Only in section 2 the authors started to present the objectives of the work.

 

4.       Lack of Novelty: The paper fails to clearly articulate and elaborate on its novelty. The frequency determination is inadequately detailed. To enhance clarity, the paper should offer a comprehensive explanation of the adhesive and the material to be bounded.

 

5.       Presentation Style: The paper predominantly reads like a technical report, focusing on various aspects of general industrial problems but not focusing on the contribution of the work.

 

In summary, the topic is undoubtedly interesting and holds potential for novelty. However, the lack of a comprehensive state-of-the-art analysis and a clear emphasis on the actual novelty necessitates a complete rewrite beyond major revision and resubmission of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for checking the manuscript.
I have taken into account all your comments in the text of the work/article.
Details are included in the appendix
With best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1. I suggest reformulation of the title.   Maybe: Kinetics of the bond formation in the case of epoxy adhesive? Anyway, "study of....example of...-case study" is way to much for the title.    2. English language, phrase construction must be carefully checked. For example, in the abstract: "Adhesive
specimens were prepared for which their quality changing with time was evaluated". Another example, page 2, paragraph 2: "Wanting to plan the times of production step, it is necessary to know the setting time of adhesive bonds." "Researchers conducted in the area of ..."  - researchers instead of researches, on page 2, paragraph 3   3. Page 2, second paragraph: SMED method. Explanation for the acronym is required. Page 2, last paragraph: CFRP joints and ITRO treatment - again explanation of the acronyms is missing   4. No conclusions after the literature review.   5. The scope of the paper is not stated. The aim of the paper and the added value of the present research should be clearly specified in relation to the presented literature review.   6. Materials and methods are hard to find within the manuscript. I would suppose that important details are missing. One can only deduce what materials and what specific characterization method were used. A distinct chapter  for this would be useful.   7. The authors uses different shapes of samples. It should be specified the initial processing of the steel surface, roughness, friction coefficient, etc. Different surfaces may result in different behavior during gluing.   8. Number of hardness determinations per sample, error value, distance between determinations? Thickness of the adhesive layer was the same? 0,3 to 1 mm may lead to very different results. At 0,3 is there any influence from the steel substrate? Might be...   9. Picture of the shore D hardness tester. No needed. The journal addresses to specialists in materials field.  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language 1. I suggest reformulation of the title.   Maybe: Kinetics of the bond formation in the case of epoxy adhesive? Anyway, "study of....example of...-case study" is way to much for the title.    2. English language, phrase construction must be carefully checked. For example, in the abstract: "Adhesive
specimens were prepared for which their quality changing with time was evaluated". Another example, page 2, paragraph 2: "Wanting to plan the times of production step, it is necessary to know the setting time of adhesive bonds." "Researchers conducted in the area of ..."  - researchers instead of researches, on page 2, paragraph 3   3. Page 2, second paragraph: SMED method. Explanation for the acronym is required. Page 2, last paragraph: CFRP joints and ITRO treatment - again explanation of the acronyms is missing   4. No conclusions after the literature review.   5. The scope of the paper is not stated. The aim of the paper and the added value of the present research should be clearly specified in relation to the presented literature review.   6. Materials and methods are hard to find within the manuscript. I would suppose that important details are missing. One can only deduce what materials and what specific characterization method were used. A distinct chapter  for this would be useful.   7. The authors uses different shapes of samples. It should be specified the initial processing of the steel surface, roughness, friction coefficient, etc. Different surfaces may result in different behavior during gluing.   8. Number of hardness determinations per sample, error value, distance between determinations? Thickness of the adhesive layer was the same? 0,3 to 1 mm may lead to very different results. At 0,3 is there any influence from the steel substrate? Might be...   9. Picture of the shore D hardness tester. No needed. The journal addresses to specialists in materials field.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for checking the manuscript.
I have taken into account all your comments in the text of the work/article.
Details are included in the appendix
With best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presented the experimental study of the adhesive bond formation using the ultrasonic method. This manuscript is overall well-written. I have a few concerns which should be addressed before it can be published.

(1) The state of the art about this topic is not sufficient. The authors need to add more references to the current investigation of the adhesive bond formation via the ultrasonic method. And the novelty of this paper should also be clearly stated.

(2) The cross-references of figures are chaotic throughout the context, most of which can be found in Section 2.2. The authors should carefully check this aspect.

(3) The units of the dimensions of the samples should be shown in figures.

(4) In Figure 9, some important appliances as well as the sample should be marked out.

 

It can be considered for publication if the authors can address the above concerns.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for checking the manuscript.
I have taken into account all your comments in the text of the work/article.
Details are included in the appendix
With best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issues raised were addressed. The quality of the paper has improved. The paper can be published in the new version

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was considerably improved. Still some typos can be found here and there.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript was considerably improved. Still some typos can be found here and there.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors well addressed the issues. The manuscript can be published in the current version.