Development of a Framework for Cost–Benefit Analysis of I-Head and T-Head Groynes Based on Scour and Turbulent Flow Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

There are many previous studies regarding using this type of physical models for groynes. I cannot find considerable novelty in your work. I suggest considering some novelties for example optimizing the size of I-head and T-head groynes (using optimization algorithm and surrogate models along with the physical model). If you can add these important novelties, you work is publishable in my view. However, I cannot recommend it without these novelties.

Kind Regards

Other comments：

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? response: turbulent flow features by a physical model for two types of groynes
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Response: in the current form, no novelty is available, and no important research gap is addressed 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? response: as mentioned no considerable novelty compared with previous studies 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? response: adding optimization method for finding the best size of the groynes. In fact, a surrogate model and optimization method along with the physical model  5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? response: conclusion is acceptable based on the selected method. However, the main problem is lack of novelty

 

6. Are the references appropriate? response: more recent references can be added

Some typos and grammatical errors can be seen

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The top-view and lateral-view sketches in figure 1(a) are a bit difficult to understand.

 

What does the power spectral density of velocity components (figure 3) tell about groyne performance? Which component is which colour (red, green, blue) of the three spectra shown?

 

Table 1, Reynolds number value: please check power superscript formatting

 

line 106: “for both the experiments”

→ for both experiments

 

line 116: semicolon to be replaced by colon

 

I would suggest to simply say “for both groyne types” instead of

 

-line 223/224, 318, 406: “in case of both the groynes”

-line 230, 241, 247: “for both cases of the groynes”

-line 406: “in both cases of groynes”

-line 409: “for both the groyne cases”

 

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is about experimental study on scour and turbulent flow characteristics around unsubmerged I-head and T-head groynes. Overall, the paper needs some significant improvements/revisions before its possible publication. Below are some of my concerns to be addressed:

The literature review is somehow weak (Improvements needed). By reading through, it is difficult to grasp the key justification for the need of this research. The manuscript needs to clearly elaborate more and show, what are the problems with the existing works in the field either globally, regionally, or nationally? Without this, readers would have difficulties in seeing the merit of this paper. Toward the end of the introduction section, the author (s) are requested to show what is missing in these previous works to grasp the real limitations of these studies leading to the motivation of conducting this specific research. Otherwise, it is questionable/dubious when the novelty is considered, authors must underline and stress on the novelty of the paper.

State the specific objectives/Aims of your study; the novelty of the work and application of your work. The novelty of the work is not clear. The introduction section and literature review must improve. At the end of introduction section you must discuses about innovation of your work compared with previous works. Other country experience and other researcher study must review and discuss.

Cost/ benefit analysis is not sufficient. Discussion about price and challenges of the method for commercial use in the rivers must discussed. Economic analysis for comparing the method with alternate methods for river restoration is necessary. How much does it cost each method? Also, Scale analysis and economic analysis for execution of the proposed method must discussed. Also, scale and economic analysis with previous work and alternate work for eutrophication reduction and control must compare. Quality of pictures are not good and must improve.

In experimental works, statistical analysis and validation of results are important. More discussion and sensitivity analysis on different parameters and concentration of water quality variables are necessary.

While the result section is well written, there is limited discussion about this study. This makes the whole part of the discussion weak and poor. Comparing your results to the previous studies is not just enough but also should consider providing the implication of your findings. The author (s) are requested to dig deep into the recent literature (Consulting recent publications) on the topic to discuss the overall results of the study.

The authors have succinctly summarized the major findings but toward the end, the significance of the research findings was not provided. The major weakness of this section is that there is a lack of concluding remarks based on your findings.

Recommendations for future direction/orientation for further research based on the remaining gaps is highly encouraged.

The English language usage should be checked by a fluent English speaker as the whole of the manuscript contain many grammatical and Syntax errors as well as typos. It is suggested to the authors take the assistance of someone with English as their mother tongue/or a professional language proofreader.

Re-check the journal guidelines for authors to update their references (Cited sources).

Revisit long sentences and try to shorten them so that readers of the manuscript cannot get lost.

The paper must summarized. Based on journal guideline the introduction section.

Validation of experiment results and results must discuss.

Abbreviation must presented at the end of paper.

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

Thanks for the revisions. Surely, adding cost-benefit analysis is very good. However, if you should have extensive focus on cost-benefit analysis. considering these points

1-Add extensive explanation of your cost-benefit analysis method in the materials and methods

2- Add the cost-benefit analysis in the title of the manuscript

3-Add more scenarios of cost-benefit analysis 

If you can add the above points, your manuscript can be eligible for publication in my view

Kind Regards

Minor edits are needed

Author Response

Please check the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

thanks for revision

Author Response

thanks for revision

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

It can be accepted