Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The paper presents the investigation of the bonding strength between façade stones and substrate. The comments are as follows:

 

1.     The size of the selected specimens shall be further explained, especially those using both adhesive mortar and anchorage. Why arrange one anchorage per 150 by 150 mm area? Is this representative in the practical application?

2.     The detailed installation of the Z-type scoop as shown in Figure 3 shall be added to the manuscript.

3.     The variation of data could be shown in Table 4 or the corresponding figures. It is recommended to discuss the bonding behaviour and failure pattern of each type of the four combinations and If available, present the load versus displacement curves.

4.     The surface condition of the substrate greatly affected the bonding strength, which shall be clearly explained in the manuscript.

5.     Table 3. Why does permeability have a unit of “%”? Should it be “porosity” according to ASTM C948?

6.     Equation 4 leads to a numerical prediction of the bonding strength while the parameter for different stone types is categorical. Supposedly, marble material shall lead to higher bond strength, but defining it as “1” does not lead to such a conclusion in the equation.

7.     The resolution and quality of Figures 10 and 11 shall be improved.

8.     With the anti-freezing agent, the hydration process of the adhesive mortar will be affected. Is it still reasonable to compare at the same age with those specimens with and without an agent? Obtaining the compressive or flexural strength properties of those mortars and linking those to the bond performance might be beneficial.

 

 

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents tests of the adhesion of stone cladding to a concrete substrate. The content of the manuscript is consistent with the title. The introduction contains references to the current bibliography. Laboratory tests were carried out with due care, but their description contains inaccuracies that should be clarified:

(1) Were any additional agents used to prepare the surface of the concrete substrate (primer, etc.)?

(2) Please give some more details about the anti-freezing agent (type, main components).

(3) What was the direction of the Z-type Scoop in relation to the direction of the load.

(4) What was the thickness of the adhesive/mortar layer?

(5) Was the load applied directly with square timber (Fig. 5), in the photo it looks wider than the mortar layer?

(6) How many samples were tested in a single series (one, more)? If more, the graphs (Figure 6-8) can show error bars.

(7) If I understood correctly, samples were tested at 3, 7 and 10 days of age. Why do the experimental results for 28-day bond capacity appear in the comparisons in Fig. 11? Why were they not shown in earlier parts of the manuscript? I sugest adding in Table 4 and in the graphs the results at 28 day.

(8) I propose to add in the caption of Table 1 a description of the abbreviation L.O.S.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for the corrections made and your answers. I have no more comments. The manuscript may be published as it is.