Durability Assessment of ETICS: Comparative Evaluation of Different Insulating Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study covers an interesting topic related to the durability of ETICS. The building construction often involves repair and rework which may cost a significant amount for fixing the defects. Durability is surely an issue and can be resolved by improving the performance of materials at the testing and manufacturing levels.

The authors have presented the state-of-the-art in detail, introduction and later sections are also well-written. However, there is a need for improvements for better reading and understanding of this paper. 

Please find my comments below:

-The introduction section must include the structure of this paper, explaining what is covered in the following sections.

-Add a Study framework that consists of all the major steps of this study.

-Why density and specific heat capacity of the materials is not mentioned/ discussed in this study while talking about materials and their thermophysical characteristics.

- I think 2.3 is 2.2. Similarly, change 2.4 and 2.5 as well.

- Table 3. Spryer do you mean "Spray". Please correct.

-Not all Tables are quoted in the main text. Include the Table numbers in the main text and what each table explains/ represents. The same applies to the Figures, all figures must be quoted in the text.

-Number Section 3 and 4 accordingly. For example, section 3.1 covers thermal resistance/ transmittance. The answer of 3.1 can be numbered as section 4.1 in the results section and so on.

-Fig 6 and 7. Use dotted lines etc. Currently, authors differentiated these lines through colour, however, for printing in black you will see no difference. It is suggested to use dotted lines, along with solid lines for better representation.

-Please define why 21 July is considered the hottest? what is the reason behind it? The current study is mainly based on an experimental chamber so considering the hottest day also brings a question. Hottest day of which year? and the geographical location.

- In my opinion, the section "Results and Discussion" lacks discussion and merely presents the results. The authors should develop a discussion section based on their results. You may include the limitations of the study etc.

-The current study focuses on insulation types that are manufactured by a specific company. How identical are the properties and thermophysical characteristics of these materials compared to similar materials manufactured by another company? This can be added to the limitations.

- The same adhesives were used for all experiments? Does the change of adhesives would change or affect the results?

- How about the Results of 3.4. Tensile strength, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8. It is not clear from the text which section or paragraph addresses these subsections.

The authors are advised to revise the paper and resubmit it for review.

Author Response

My revision in response to the advice suggested by reviewer 1:

-The introduction section must include the structure of this paper, explaining what is covered in the following sections.

• Done, added lines 75-96

-Add a Study framework that consists of all the major steps of this study.

• Added Lines 600-603 and lines 75-96

-Why density and specific heat capacity of the materials is not mentioned/ discussed in this study while talking about materials and their thermophysical characteristics.

• Although density and specific heat capacity has been added in tab 2, the most interesting and measurable characteristics for ETICS are thermal performances, then thermal conductivity, thermal transmittance, thermal resistance, decrement factor and time shift; These aforementioned performances are widely discussed in this paper.

- I think 2.3 is 2.2. Similarly, change 2.4 and 2.5 as well.

• Done

- Table 3. Spryer do you mean "Spray". Please correct.

• Done

-Not all Tables are quoted in the main text. Include the Table numbers in the main text and what each table explains/ represents. The same applies to the Figures, all figures must be quoted in the text.

• Done

-Number Section 3 and 4 accordingly. For example, section 3.1 covers thermal resistance/ transmittance. The answer of 3.1 can be numbered as section 4.1 in the results section and so on.

-Fig 6 and 7. Use dotted lines etc. Currently, authors differentiated these lines through colour, however, for printing in black you will see no difference. It is suggested to use dotted lines, along with solid lines for better representation.

-Please define why 21 July is considered the hottest? what is the reason behind it? The current study is mainly based on an experimental chamber so considering the hottest day also brings a question. Hottest day of which year? and the geographical location.

• Added lines 499-505

- In my opinion, the section "Results and Discussion" lacks discussion and merely presents the results. The authors should develop a discussion section based on their results. You may include the limitations of the study etc.

• Added lines 678-684, lines 734-739, lines 768-777;

-The current study focuses on insulation types that are manufactured by a specific company. How identical are the properties and thermophysical characteristics of these materials compared to similar materials manufactured by another company? This can be added to the limitations.

• It is not necessary add limitations because the manufacturer isn’t the same one. IVAS is a producer of adhesive and finishing coats (like Klebocem and Rivatone). This producer has ETA certification for each ETICS who seels. IVAS sells and has certification for the entire system, the whole ETICS within thermal insulating panels. In lines 345-348 it’s explained and as specified in 347 “according to its certified systems within the main insulating materials producers” it’s shown that IVAS get by the main producers the insulating panels. Then assembling the entire kit for ETICS, IVAS sells certified ETICS according to EAD 040083.

- The same adhesives were used for all experiments? Does the change of adhesives would change or affect the results?

• It’s explained in lines 310-316, in lines 833-835, and widely repeated in other sections, that “objective of the research is to provide a relative comparison of the role played by the insulating material for the durability of ETICS”.

- How about the Results of 3.4. Tensile strength, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8. It is not clear from the text which section or paragraph addresses these subsections.

• In Lines 66-81 and Lines 581-585 it’s explained why these mechanical performances are are nearing completion.

Thank you for your revision.

Kind regards

Ing. Roberto Landolfi, PhD student

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be accepted with minor revision.

English level is quite good, some minor spelling checks are needed, e.g. in Table 3, minor cycles instead of cicle.

The two main observations are: 1, that working on one sample per ETICS type limits the generality of conclusions as minor and non visible production defects can have an high influence on results interpretation; 2, the results of measurements of the parameters of the six samples before and after ageing cycles have to be presented. Particularly water absorption measurements after ageing are performed only after 1h while at T0 was performed after 1 ad 24h; time shift evaluation are only on three of the six samples.

Finally no mechanical results are presented in the paper, it could be very interesting verify these results, if not available yet please remove the description of test not performed or discussed from the paper.

Author Response

Revisions in response to the advice suggested by reviewer 2:

1. Added lines 791-798 to specify the limitations of the research;
2. Added lines 95-97 and lines 608-611 to specify that mechanical performances are being measured and will be analyzed in the next proceeding. Another reviewer also required to make these revisions. The missing tests (water absorption test after 24 h after accelerated ageing cycles and time shift test) aren’t shown in paper because of some mistakes in the repetition of the tests; these tests require difficult phases of preparation of samples placed on a stand (for time shift diagram) and covered with waterproofing on lateral sides (for water absorption).

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I would like to thank the author/s for their effort.

A significant effort has been made by the authors to evaluate the durability of ETICS with different insulating materials in order to quantify the service life, and then 20 correctly plan maintenance interventions. But there are some minor comments that need from authors to modify it to enhance the research:

1- In abstract, graphical abstract is requested to explain more what you will do in this article.

2- At the end of abstract, Authors should add part of the result of this experiment as conclusion of the abstract.

3- It would be helpful if the authors could add a paragraph to the beginning of the paper under title (1. Introduction) to discuss why this subject is important, and to describe in brief the aim of this study with a final paragraph to explain the methodology they used.

4-I recommend the authors to add different figures under title (1.3 Research Issue) to draw different samples in page (4)

5-In this paper, All Tables and Figures Need a reference and should be citied in the text body of manuscript.

6-There is equations in pages (12), (17) without reference. Should add reference.

7-In the conclusion and further developments part is so general.

By the end, I want to say that you did a great job and all this comments is to encourage the author to enhance the quality of paper.

Thank you for your efforts.

Best Wishes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Revisions in response to the advice suggested by reviewer 3:

1 – Done

2 – Done, added line 28-30.

3 – Done, added lines 72 – 97.

4 – We thank Reviewer for the suggestion: we preferred not to add figures in paragraph 1.3, to emphasize the development of the research presented here

5 – Done

6 – Done

7 – Added lines 782-783, lines 791-798, lines 821-833, lines 868-875 in the chapter conclusion and further developments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for the necessary changes and corrections.

I found it difficult to check trace the changes. Few of the line numbers mentioned in the response letter doesn't really match with the changes made in the revised file. 

I suggest checking the paper for language and small spelling mistakes. 

Write section 1, section 2, 3 etc. rather than chapters 1, 2, 3...

Table 3: Spray correct the spelling