Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents self-sealing joint for the junction of the exterior walls with the intermediate floor within a system of fully prefabricated light wood frame walls (FPWW).

The content of the paper corresponds to the topic stated in the title.

The article has a well thought-out, logical structure. It has been divided into seven chapters.

The selection of sources is correct. Sources include 48 references.

I recommend the article for publishing after taking into account the following remarks:

1.       Chapter 7 „Patents” should not be a separate chapter.

2.       Table 8 is a figure, not a table.

3.       Table 9 is a figure, not a table.

4.       The schedule in Table 9 does not include backfilling. Please provide a clarification on this.

5.       Line 695-696 “These walls could also reduce the duration of a conventional single-family residential project by 15 to 28%.”. Please attach the calculations from which 15-28% duration reduction.

Author Response

Hi,

(1) The text template developed by MDPI Buildings is structured to isolate the details of patentability in one chapter. 

(2) The changes were made in accordance with the proposed suggestion

(3) The changes were made in accordance with the proposed suggestion 

(4) Excellent comment. The backfill has been added to the figure along with the foundations and drainage. As these steps are performed in parallel with the prefabrication of the structure, it does not affect the total duration of the project.

(5) Clarifications have been added to the text. The reductions discussed combined with the parallel prefabrication would allow this type of project to be completed in 11.5 to 13.5 weeks. So, the calculations are: 1-(13.5/16)=0.15625 and 1-(11.5/16)=0.28125. Thanks to you, an adjustment was also made as the reduction could be in the range of 16-28% if rounded. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Please address the comments in the pdf attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The changes were made in accordance with the proposed suggestion.

Reviewer 3 Report

This study presented a new design a self-sealing joint for FPWW, and conducted airtightness tests and thermal bridge assessments in laboratory to compare the developed self-sealing joint with different sealing materials. In addition, the same tests were also conducted on site. The research is very comprehensive and interesting. It is suggested to be accepted for publication. Nonetheless, some comments should be addressed as follows.

(1)    The new concept 1 and 2 should be illustrated in figures. Now only some description is given in context. The Fig. 2 shows the new concept 1?

(2)     Why do you move the OSB panel from the outside to the inside of the light wood frame panel? To support the floor? The influence on the mechanical behavior should be addressed.

(3)    In Fig. 3, the different materials should be denoted with different legends, and the figure citation in the text should be specific as Fig.3(a)…

(4)    Could you explain the meaning of F and G in the circles? The gauge should also be marked in the drawing.

(5)    Larger air leakage was observed in House A and House B, so how to deal with this situation?

(6)    In Fig. 15(a), the FPWW was installed on site. What are the timber studs and panel in the second storey? The protection coatings?

(7)    Some spelling errors should be checked. Like sheating in the text and figures.

Author Response

(1) Clarifications have been made to the text to better describe the assembly. Unfortunately, some figures were sensitive for the industrial partner. Nevertheless, figure 2 shows the structure of new concept 1 and 2. Figure 3 (a) and figure 4 show the new concept 1.

(2) It was for hygrothermal behavior into the wall cavity. It was not considered relevant for this study.

(3) The materials have been identified directly in the figures. The figure citations in the text have been corrected.

(4) F and G were removed from the figure as ther referred to an assembly detail for a third party. Details were added directly to the image in the laboratory to locate the gauge for example.

(5) With the limits encountered in the laboratory, the junction of external walls with intermediate floor was the priority of this study, which is why these leaks were not studied further. 

(6) Clarifications have been made to the legend. What can be seen is the interior side of a wall into lifting operations. We can also see the exterior side of another wall on the transport system. 

(7) Spelling errors have been checked and corrected