Bank Protection Structures along the Brahmaputra-Jamuna River, a Study of Flow Slides
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript again presents a summary of actions carried out on the Brahmaputra-Jamuna River for the protection of its banks and the conclusions which have been reached after its implementation.
The modifications carried out by the author over the initial version (numbered as water-703155) are minimal. Indeed, most of the corrections suggested by one reviewer in the previous review have not been addressed.
Some figures have been slightly improved, such as ones 1, 5, 11 y 22, but others are, as in the first version, of poor quality (see Figures 7, 17, 18 y 19). Furthermore, Figure 16 is absolutely unnecessary.
Formally, the writing style is still personalistic, which is inappropriate for a scientific manuscript. Moreover, Abstract does not follow the recommendation of journal template (“A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum”), there is minor format error (see Line 308) and lack of references in Figure 17.
Once again, and due to the absence of any substantial modifications to the initial manuscript, my decision is the same, and I recommend Editor reject it (out of scope).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I made new improvements of the figures you mentioned. I am sorry not following the format for an abstract strictly.
I do not agree with your opinion that figure 16 should be omitted. The designers of bank protectors in Bangladesh did not know the phenomenon of flow slides. For experts in the field of flow slides it might be superfluous.
I added information of three physical model investigations and references to two recent articles about monitoring and modelling of flow slides. In the field of river training practical experience is still important as can be illustrated by the manuals and guidelines for designers of river training structures.
I regret you do not appreciate my manuscript, and I thank you for your review.
Reviewer 2 Report
At the row 22, please define geotextiles
At te row 50 "I compiled information on river training carried out along the river and the studies that were carried out for the design of the structures" please correct. Please replace "I" with "The Author(s)"
At the row 53 "I..".replace with "The Authors"
At the row 69, same as above
At the row 142 " 1V:2H" Please define V and H
At the row 270 "that turbulent flow induced..." Almost every flow is turbulent; maybe Authors refers to scour. Please correct.
At the row 397 "critical flow velocity" needs to be defined.
At the row 642 ". Currently, it is believed that deepening of
643 a scour hole is often a main trigger for a slide in periods with rising water levels" Please refers to some study/references
Author Response
Dear review,
All remarts on geotextiles have been omitted, to focus on the phenomenon of flow slides.
'I' have been replaced by 'author'.
The definitions of V and H heven been included.
With 'turbulent flow' I mentioned 'highly turbulent flow' as in a vortex street.
A description of 'critical flow velocity' has been included.
The sentence at row 642 has been changed, the statement is based on the cases described in chapter 2.
Reviewer 3 Report
The content of the manuscript is of great practical interest not only for the Republic of Bangladesh, but also for many similar deltaic regions at least in the tropical latitudes of the planet. The work is based, inter alia, on the experience of the author, who worked in Bangladesh for many years. It is felt that the author knows very well the region of work, and the problems associated with riverine bank deformations in the ancient (upper) delta of the Ganges-Brahmaputra Rivers system. The text of the manuscript is written in good scientific English. Along with this, I have a few wishes (recommendations) for the manuscript to improve it.
- The manuscript is quite large in volume. Therefore, I highly recommend reducing it by removing relatively insignificant material (including numerous examples in the first half of the manuscript). This will facilitate reading a future article, improve the perception of abundant factual material.
- It is advisable to update the list of literature, given the modern (the last two decades) achievements in the field of knowledge.
- It is desirable to decipher (using definitions) some specific technical and technological terms used in the manuscript, so that they are clear to a wide readership.
- There are some wishes for the design of the figures presented in the manuscript, viz:
- All figures, where there is photographic material, need a link to the authors of the material (source of information).
- Figures 1, 5, and 15 need scale.
- Figure 11 needs a legend.
- In figures 17, 18, and 19, it is desirable to indicate the sources of information received, and not just “data from literature”.
- In Figure 22, it is important to indicate the direction (using arrow icon) of the flow of water.
- In the Abstract: “Some aspects of the design processes of these river training works are reviewed in this chapter”. Why “chapter”?
I wish you success in your work
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I removed two pages from chapter 2 and also 2 figures are replaced by small maps. I consider the case of a flow slide by floating debris as a new process. I have not read about similar cases.
I found two recent articles on a monitoring experiment in the field of a flow slide in 2014 and numerical modelling of flow slides 2016. These have been added.
I included descriptions of the internal and external angle of repose.
A link to source of all photographs has been added. Be aware that some sources do not exist anymore, for example FAP 21 archive. In theory the Government of Bangladesh is the owner, but I expect they cannot find it, if you request them.
Scales and legends have been added to figures with maps.
'data from literature' have been replaced by "Breusers, van der Wal, Nijkamp and Maza Alvarez'
Sentence with 'chapter' has been changed.
Thank you for your review.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Author,
your work on the Brahmaputra-Jamuna River system is interesting and can be very helpful, especially for practitioners. The present version, however, needs improvements and some points should be stated in a more straightforward way for reaching the proper audience.
Below you can find some general issues that should be addressed in revising the manuscript, while my detailed comments are reported in the pdf.
Please consider integrating these comments with what you received for the previous version of this paper.
- Introduction
The aim is not clearly stated here. I suggest rephrasing the section pointing out what is the main goal of the paper from the very beginning (e.g., moving lines 69-70 at the beginning).
- Overview of implemented structures: specifications and experiences
If you decide to analyse only a few specific cases, you should clearly state why. I can understand that you have a great experience in such cases, but a clearer research rationale is needed.
This section is highly descriptive, but with very few references. How can a reader understand your review if only a few references are given? Please consider that, theoretically, any scientific study should allow for its reproducibility.
Figures
Most of the photos are not needed for understanding the research. Please consider changing/deleting them.
All the figures are too small and not readable. In this version, these figures are just meaningless.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
In the introduction three research questions have been added and in the conclusions answers have been given. Remarks on geotextiles have been omitted.
The cases in chapter 2 explain why the Government of Bangladesh and the World Bank decided to construct 'long-guiding' revetments since 2015. This decision means that the problem of flow slides damaging river training structures has not been solved. I suggest research using field tests, test river training structures and extended monitoring to develop designs of river training structures that will not be damaged by flow slides.
I selected the most relevant literature. On the subject river training in the Brahmaputra-Jamuna River much more literature can be found, but not so much on descriptions of damages river training structures.
I improved the figures and graphs. Indeed some were difficult to read.
And thank you for your corrections of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Decision
Reject. Out of scope.
Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments
Dear Reviewer,
I made new improvements of the figures you mentioned. I am sorry not following the format for an abstract strictly.
I do not agree with your opinion that figure 16 should be omitted. The designers of bank protectors in Bangladesh did not know the phenomenon of flow slides. For experts in the field of flow slides it might be superfluous.
I added information of three physical model investigations and references to two recent articles about monitoring and modelling of flow slides. In the field of river training practical experience is still important as can be illustrated by the manuals and guidelines for designers of river training structures.
I regret you do not appreciate my manuscript, and I thank you for your review.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Firstly, I would like to highlight clearly my utmost respect for your work or that of any other author(s) who submit their manuscripts for external evaluation. Also, I would like to make it clear that in this type of review only the manuscript is evaluated, not the author(s). In fact, it is never considered to whom the signatory(s) of the manuscript is.
Secondly, I appreciate the effort made by the author in this new version of the manuscript. Indeed, after a first revision, this version presents modifications over the initial one.
Thirdly, it seems there was a problem about the manuscript version that was sent to me for evaluation in your new submission, numbered as water-816711.
General Comments (GC)
I believe this manuscript is characterized by a strong technical nature, typical of engineering reports focused on a unique case study. This is clearly highlighted in main references used, technical reports (references [21-23]) and manuals ([8,13,27,29]). The justification given by author for no removing figure 16 reinforces this idea ”I do not agree with your opinion that figure 16 should be omitted. The designers of bank protectors in Bangladesh did not know the phenomenon of flow slides. For experts in the field of flow slides it might be superfluous.”. Furthermore, I agree the author that in this field of engineering the experience is crucial.
Based on:
- The personalistic style of the manuscript. A scientific reader can already see that the article is signed by a single author.
- The introduction section is completely devoted to a unique case study. This is typical of Technical reports, which reinforces the strong technical nature of the manuscript.
- No State of Art is addressed.
- Many statements are not supported by scientific references (please, see Lines 40, 466-470, 481, and 967 among others).
- Experimentation with physical models is widely accepted among the scientific and engineering community.
- If I understand correctly, the physical models were carried out between 1994 and 1995.
- Economic statements are not supported by justified assessments in the manuscript.
Therefore, I have no objection to this manuscript being published as a Personal Communication or Technical Note, but not as a Research paper (Article).
I believe this is an excellent engineering work but, unfortunately, I only appreciate as a novelty on the current state of knowledge, the one carried out in lines 1051 and 1076 regarding new active and passive geomatic sensors applied to physical models. However, this aspect is not addressed in the manuscript.
Regarding the formal aspect, as the author knows, the journal template is a mandatary. For that, I recommend strongly following the instructions that the journal has defined. In this sense, I suggest, once again, shortening the Abstract section, 400 words are excessive. Moreover, figures shown are excessively small (see Figure 7 and 17) and schematic (2, 4, there are many free satellite images at the author's disposal). Also, I suggest shortening the paragraphs, they are excessively long and improving the results tables of Appendix section.
Author Response
Answer to reviewer 1:
It took some time before I understood the system of the MDPI for publishing manuscripts.
The manuscript intends to connect the world of designers of river training works and the scientist studying the geotechnical instabilities in the case of the Brahmaputra-Jamuna River in Bangladesh. Although many foreign renowned experts participated in these design processes, the designs did not anticipate possible damage by flow slides. The constructed river training works along that river experienced extensive damage during last decades.
River training works damaged by flow slides are observed in river deltas and estuaries if certain conditions are met for example the Scheldt Estuaries in the Netherlands and the Mississippi delta in the USA. The Brahmaputra-Jamuna River can be added to these examples. This makes it a special case study and the findings of this case study are applicable also in other delta areas with the problem of damages by flow slides, for example in Myamar.
I agree with your observation that no state of the art is presented. The manuscript would become even more lengthy. To describe the state of the art of river training works is complex, because it is a mixture of pure theory, experience, tradition, regulations and local boundary conditions including economic aspects such as availability of construction materials. The state of the art of flow slides and related geotechnical instabilities can grow to a special article, see references 33 and 36. It might distract the attention from the main message of my manuscript.
I agree more scientific references could have been included. I tried to limit the number of the references to the most relevant ones.
The three physical model investigations are part of the Flood Action Plan for Bangladesh and these investigations were carried out in the period 1993 – 1995. The results are published in this manuscript for the first time.
The quantitative back-ground information of the economic statements is missing because designers and consultants of river training works are reluctant to present detailed economic information they consider as sensitive for competition. It is expected that the qualitative statements are valid in a wider range of cases.
The presentation of the results of the physical model tests contains some new aspects: the linear relationship presented in Figure 17a, the definition of a shape factor and a new definition of permeability in Figure 17b enables the presentation of the scour depth measured in tests with permeable and impermeable groynes in one graph Figures 18 and 19. It is my intention to write a separate manuscript about local scour phenomena around different types of groynes to present background information about these new aspects.
The abstract has been reduced to 325 words in a single paragraph to meet the requirements for an abstract.
The critical remarks in your review has helped me to improve this manuscript and I will take them into account in case I will consider to write another manuscript. Thank you for your review.
Reviewer 2 Report
This work presents interesting results concerning the Bank protection structures along the Brahmaputra-Jamuna River, with a particular focus on hydraulics and geotechnical aspects
In particular the Authors, collecting "in situ" data from 1980 to 2015 deepen impacts and damages due to the bank slumping in turn caused by flow slides. Some important results were find about hydraulic features that permaeable groynes have on flow and the consequences of erosion and scour; the Authors furnish important suggestion and hints to river design in Bangladesh.
The paper is presenting solid experimental results backed by convincing and in-depth simulations and analysis and I believe that it is a good candidate for being published in Water
Author Response
Answer to reviewer 2: Thank you for your review.
Reviewer 3 Report
- Figures 15 needs scale;
- In Figure 22, it is important to indicate the direction (using arrow icon) of the flow of water.
Additionally: "Figure 7. and 7b". Why 7b?
Author Response
Answer to reviewer 3: I agree fully with the suggested improvements and they are incorporated in the manuscript. Thank you for your review.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction
At row 44 "At a certain location". Please be more specific.
At row 48 "I compiled information" and row 51 " I was involved". Please rewrite replacing "I" with "Author"
At row 65 the word "slides" is introduced. Considering it as a key word in the paper, please define scientifically what is a slide.
2. Overview of implemented structures: specifications and experiences
At row 101 "“heavily damaged or portions.....each year". It is a sentence from a reference? Please cite it.
At row 149 "flattende" is meaningless. Please correct.
At row 149 " 1V:2H" please specify "V" and "H"
At row 158 "turbulent vortex street caused a deep scour hole" please see reference below [1]
At row 178 "Recently a news paper article dated 8 October 2018" please correct and cite reference.
At row 248 "The guide bunds were to be constructed" please correct.
At row 335 "Set-up of the test structure". Considering it as an experimental method paragraph, I think it should be important to specify hydraulic condition of the flow, considering that Authors focused on scour problem. see also reference below [2,4]
At row 500 " The total volume of the 34,000 m3 material had moved in chunks of about a meter thickness". Please motivate why.
3. Special topics
At row 580 "geobags". Please describe a geobag.
At row 604 "made for example of bamboo and leaves". motivate why. See also reference below [2,3]
At row 749 "revention of deep scour holes close to river training structures" it is in a different type character
Figure 22 is quite poor. Can be improved?
Figure 23, it can't be read vertical axis title
6. Geotextiles
Please underline the importance of geotextiles in erosion processes.
Reference (for Authors)
Aberle, J., Järvelä, J., 2013. Flow resistance of emergent rigid and flexible floodpla in vegetation. J. Hydraulic Res. 51 (1), 33–45. Pasquino V., Gualtieri P., Pulci Doria G., (2016). On Evaluating Flow Resistance of Rigid Vegetation Using Classic Hydraulic Roughness at High Submergence Levels: An Experimental Work, GeoPlanet: Earth and Planetary Sciences, Volume none, Pages 269–277. Gualtieri, P., Felice, S.D., Pasquino, V., Doria, G.P. (2018) Use of conventional flow resistance equations and a model for the Nikuradse roughness in vegetated flows at high submergence, Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics Errico,A., V. Pasquino, M. Maxwald, G.B. Chirico, L. Solari, F. Preti(2018) The effect of flexible vegetation on flow in drainage channels: Estimation of roughness coefficients at the real scale, Ecological Engineering 120 (2018) 411–421
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents a summary of actions carried out on the Brahmaputra-Jamuna River for the protection of its banks and the conclusions which have been reached after its implementation.
Personally, I think this manuscript has got a strong technical nature, and I do not consider it suitable for publication in a scientific journal like Water.
Decision: Reject. Out of scope.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
to me, your work seems more an extensive summary of technical measures applied along the Brahmaputra-Jamuna River rather than a scientific article. I apologize, but I am not able to catch the novelty of your manuscript.
Given that you made a huge effort in collecting information on this topic, I suggest rethinking the structure of the paper towards a review.
Attached you can find a commented version of your manuscript, at least for the first pages.
The English language and style need some polishing, but it is generally fine.
Figure 1 should be improved, as suggested in the revised manuscript. As for the figures, please reconsider some of them, given that they provide very few details on the study. I understand that you want to provide a review on all the studies performed in the area, but, in a scientific article, figures should also drive a message aside from being a representation of the local situation.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
