Placed Riprap Deformation Related to Axial Load at Toe Support: Physical Modelling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is exciting and valuable for structural engineering, and I suggest this manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we are very pleased that you recommend the publication of this article. Thank you deeply for accepting to review our work and for the attentive reading of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper documents laboratory experiments designed to evaluate the behavior of a layer of riprap stones on a model rockfill slope due to increasing overtopping water flow. Measurements include slope-parallel and slope-normal displacements and toe load, as a function of overtopping flow. Evidence of buckling is justified by comparison with analytical solutions for column buckling.

The experiments seem to have been well-performed, and the measurements and their interpretation made rigorously. The paper is very well-written, and the documentation is sufficient for reproduction of the experiments by others. One surprising result is the large variation in critical discharge between supposedly-identical setups. It would be good to have a more detailed discussion by the authors about the causes of the variability, and whether steps were taken to minimize it. Otherwise, I have no suggestions for changes to the paper, and have no reservations about recommending publication as it stands.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we want to thank you deeply for having accepted to review our work and for the attentive reading of the manuscript. We are pleased to read that you recommend the publication of our work. We agree that the large variation of critical discharge values could have been more discussed. Thus, we completed the discussion on that specific point to provide more information (l. 439-444).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled "Placed riprap deformation related to axial load at toe support: physical modelling" is within the scope of journal. This is well organized and written. Before any further the paper in the present form needs moderate revision:

1-Introduction section needs furnishing by using Journal of Hydroinformatics 22 (4), 749-767, 2020.

2-Details of flow conditions should be defined in Fig.2

3-Authors need to merge dimensional analysis into the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for reviewing our research article and for the attentive reading of the manuscript. Your comments and recommendations have been of precious help, and we hope our modifications will bring to light a more complete and rigorous version of this paper. Please find below the answers to your requests

1) In the introduction (l 54-58), the suggested reference was added (l 530-531).

2) Details of flow conditions were added in section 3.2 (l 136-139).

3) We apologize if your request is not fulfilled as expected. We were not sure to understand it clearly. We have modified some of the units in the paper, figures, and tables to ensure that all the used units share the same format. For example, all the kN units were changed to N. Cm were changed to m. l/s were changed to l.s^-1. Now, all the units fit the international system of units and coherence is assured all along with the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept as is