Temporal Scour Variations at Permeable and Angled Spur Dikes under Steady and Unsteady Flows
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
This reviewer was asked what software for deriving the equation 3 a, b for e.g. origin software and spss , authors not replying says reviewer reading different manuscript?
Figure 8. Comparison between observed and computed values of the maximum scour depths at spur dikes under unsteady flows
did the figure is acceptable? what is % of error limit can accept the scatter plot as both calibration and validation data is under and over predicted
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The manuscript has been improved. However, there are still some shortcomings that need to be addressed:
1. Lines 33-34: Since in the laboratory scale, not every phenomenon in a real case can be observed, the laboratory-based results for scouring should be extended to the real-world cases considering “scale effects”. So, the following sentence should be revised as it suggests extending the results without any scaling caution: “These dimensionless variables would generalize the laboratory results to the real-world scenarios.”
2. Line 15: Since the experiments conducted in this study present new data, I highly suggest that the authors provide them as a supplementary file so that other researchers can access and expand the knowledge on the topic.
3. Line 121: This should be a sperate paragraph (from the previous round of review).
4. Lines 120-121: Replace the following sentence “However, there are not studies, or they are rare, on scouring around spur dikes under unsteady flows. Although these are the common conditions encountered in nature.” With “Considering the common conditions encountered in nature, it is still required to study scouring around spur dikes under unsteady flows.” Because there are some studies available in the current literature.
5. Introduction: The novelty should be clearly stated in the introduction section (from the previous round of review).
6. Line 357 and Line 457: The manuscript has “4. Discussion” and “4. Conclusions”.
7. Methods and materials: The response for “What is the rationality behind the fact that 36 experiments enough? How do you justify the number of your data samples?” is not satisfactory. If you do not have a rationality behind doing “36” experiments, mention in the text that the number of experiments were selected arbitrary because there is a scientific method to delineate how many cases should be considered for a set of independent variables in a phenomenon.
8. Line 334: How many data are from steady and how many from unsteady conditions? Mention it in the text.
9. Line 184: If the experiments were conducted for both steady and unsteady conditions, the title of the manuscript should be modified.
10. Line 350: Add an appropriate reference (like [30]) to the end of this line.
11. Lines 347-352: Move this part to the “Methods and materials” section. It is not the results of your work.
12. Line 334: Which program did you use for implementing “nonlinear regression”? Add the name of the software.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Revision is appropriate
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
1. Which software you have used?
2. Highlights innovativeness and novelty in introduction section
3. Any assumptions you have considered ?
4. How many and which governing equation is used ?
5. Which scour is existing in your study area?
6. Any river meandering effects ?
7. How to restore the river?
8. Purpose of providing dyke ?
9. Any other structure measure considered?
10. Do cite below mentioned papers & add them in reference:-
— Mehta, D. J., & Yadav, S. M. (2020). Analysis of scour depth in case of parallel bridges using HEC-RAS. Water Supply.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript conducted an experimental study to investigate the impacts of orientation angle and permeability of the spur dike on the temporal scour development. It has many shortcomings, which are presented in the following:
1. Title: Is it “Temporal Scour Variation” or “Temporal Scour Variations”?
2. Lines 16-18: Is it “was explored” or “were explored”?
3. Lines 18-20: This sentence is not written in a clear way. Rewrite.
4. Abstract: There is no information about scale modeling since the study did a scaled rather than real case experiment.
5. Abstract: There is absolutely no quantitative information about the results in the abstract.
6. Abstract: What is the novelty of this work? I know there are several similar studies published in the literature.
7. Abstract: How can the results of your experimental analysis contribute to make river banks more stable regarding the use of spur dikes? This information is missing.
8. Abstract: Are 36 experiments enough to develop a new model to predict the time-dependent scour depth?
9. Abstract: What are the independent variables used in the new empirical model?
10. Abstract: Which data were measured in the 36 experiments for predicting the scour depth?
11. Lines 86-87: This sentence requires an appropriate reference.
12. Line 87: It is obvious that the maximum scour depth, which may be observed at the steady or equilibrium condition, is considered for design of spur dike as it is the highest scour depth. However, you studied time-dependent scour depth under the unsteady flow condition. How such study can be useful? This information should be elaborated in the text as it is the reason behind doing this and similar studies.
13. Lines 103-105: You stated that “However, there are not studies, or they are rare, on scouring around spur dikes under unsteady flows, though these are the usual conditions encountered in nature.” But, you used an experimental study in a 10-meter channel and not in a natural river. This is not consistent with the gap in the literature that you are referring to. Although you may develop an unsteady flow in your 0.76-wide flume, it merely will be a simplified scaled situation of the real world scenario.
14. Line 105: This should be a separate paragraph.
15. Introduction: The novelty should be clearly stated in the introduction section.
16. Line 108: Please respect “Introduction, methods and materials, results, discussion” order in the text.
17. Figure 1: I suggest replacing it with a colorful figure. The detail is not clear in the black and white version.
18. Methods and materials: There is no dimensional analysis to verify which independent variables influence the time-dependent scour depth.
19. Methods and materials: Which parameters did you measure in your experiments in the flume?
20. Methods and materials: There is no scale analysis. How can one make sure that the dimension of your flume or spur dike can be extended to a real case study?
21. Methods and materials: What is the rationality behind the fact that 36 experiments enough? How do you justify the number of your data samples?
22. Figure 4: Remove the black border.
23. Separate results and discussion sections.
24. Lines 365-380: These are methods and materials and not results. It should be moved to its correct place in the text.
25. Line 380: How many data did you have that you divided them into train and test data?
26. Line 380: Why did you use 75% data for train and 25% data for test? This data division requires a proper reference (My suggestion 10.1007/s40996-018-0129-9).
27. Eq. 3: Which method did you use to develop this equation?
28. Figure 8: Add RMSE to this comparison because some data points are far from the identical line.
29. Conclusions: This is not a conclusion. It is not accepted and should be rewritten.
30. What are the limitations of your experimental study?
