Repairing Performance of Polymer-Modified Cement-Based Thin Spray-On Liners on Pre-Cracked Rock-like Specimens
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting research about the ability of three thin spray-on liners in reparing pre-cracked rock-like specimens. It can be considered to be published after revising the following major problems
1. Figure 1, 17,18,19,20,23,24,25,26,27,28,29 should be added the error bar
2. Figure 2-4 should be integrated in one figure and the captions present in full expression
3. SEM images of three TSLs after coating on rock-like specimens are necessary to evaluate their reparing performace
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
Author Response
We would like to sincerely thank the Reviewers for reviewing our manuscript. The corresponding changes in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in red. The page and line numbers mentioned below are based on the "Revised manuscript with changes marked" document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper investigates the application of thin spray-on liners (TSL) in the context of rock surface protection and ground stability. The paper describes the testing methods used to evaluate the flow extensibility, viscosity, and basic mechanical properties of TSL, as well as the repair performance of TSL on rock-like specimens. The following points should be considered by the authors:
• The authors should mention in the Abstract whether they performed an experimental study with TSL or not. The experimental nature of the study should be emphasized.
• The last paragraph of Introduction can be extended. The significance of the research project can be emphasized.
• From Section 2: "In this paper, three kinds of TSLs were prepared based on raw materials, and rock-like materials were configured and rock-like specimens were prepared with reference to the literature." → This sentence is too long and have an unclear meaning. Please revise.
• Line 178: "As shown in Table 3". This is an incomplete sentence. Please correct.
• The meanings of the group names in Table 4 should be explained in the main text.
• Line 215: "According to the requirements of Table 2.4" → Table number is incorrect.
• In the first paragraph of Section 2.4. the difference between "TSL basic performance tests" and "TSL repair tests" should be explained. Why is it necessary to conduct these two different type of tests? Please provide explanation.
• Line 274: "The ratio of bending to compression responds to the toughness of the material." → This sentence has an unclear meaning. Please revise.
• Line 289: "3.2. Compressive and flexural of PR-TSL" → Section title is incomplete. Please correct.
• Line 397: "With its high viscosity, it acted as a connection and carried some of the load, prevented the displacement required for damage to occur, as shown in Figure 22." → The contents of Figure 22 should be better explained.
• The paragraph that starts at Line 444 and ends at Line 450 should be rewritten. Particularly, the last 3 or 4 sentences of this paragraph should be combined into one sentence.
• Line 482: "PR containing 0°, 45°, and 90° cracks were repaired by STSL and VTSL" → Please check if PTSL should also be mentioned in this sentence or not.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language needs moderate editing.
Author Response
We would like to sincerely thank the Reviewers for reviewing our manuscript. The corresponding changes in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in red. The page and line numbers mentioned below are based on the "Revised manuscript with changes marked" document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper studies the "Repairing performance of polymer-modified cement-based thin spray-on liners on pre-cracked rock-like specimens".
The English is good.
1. The introduction needs some improvement; you can cite [1-9]; please make the changes.
2. Please put the tables and the figures in the centre.
3. Please describe the figures, not just abbreviations.
4. The conclusion must be improved, you have many results, please make a consistent conclusion.
5. The references are good.
6. The novelty of this article is average, but the test is very well described.
I recommend a minor revision.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English is good.
Author Response
We would like to sincerely thank the Reviewers for reviewing our manuscript. The corresponding changes in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in red. The page and line numbers mentioned below are based on the "Revised manuscript with changes marked" document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt can be accepted in the current form
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
