Assessing the Performance of Permeable Pavement in Mitigating Flooding in Urban Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good paper. A revision is needed.

Comments:

(1) Introduction. Please compare the permeable pavement with other conventional pavement types. The authors can cite paper "Field investigation and numerical analysis of an inverted pavement system in Tennessee, USA"

(2) What is the research gap?

(3) Please highlight your novelty.

(4) How can you make sure your asphalt mixture?

(5) What is your pavement permeability? how did you quantify the effectiveness?

(6) Figures should be improved. Many key data are not clear.

Language should be polished.

Author Response

• Please compare the permeable pavement with other conventional pavement types. The authors can cite paper "Field investigation and numerical analysis of an inverted pavement system in Tennessee, USA"

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

The comparison of permeable pavement with other pavement has been added at P3.

 

• What is the research gap?

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

Relevant content has been added in 1. Introduction, refer to P1-2.

 

• Please highlight your novelty.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

The innovations of this paper have been supplemented in 1. Introduction and 4. Discussion and Conclusions, as detailed in P1 and P18.

 

• How can you make sure your asphalt mixture?

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

The test results and related specifications of the asphalt mixture have been added in Table 2.2, as detailed in P6.

• What is your pavement permeability? how did you quantify the effectiveness?

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

In this paper, the permeability coefficient is used to evaluate the permeability of pavement materials and the permeability coefficient of each material is added in Table 2.4, which is by the relevant regulations, detailed P7.

 

• Figures should be improved. Many key data are not clear.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

Adjustments have been made for unclear charts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the paper under the title “Assessing the Performance of Permeable Pavement in Mitigating Flooding in Urban Areas” raises very important and current issues regarding flood protection in urban areas, which are particularly important in the face of climate change. However, the method of preparing the manuscript and describing the conducted research is so chaotic and inconsistent that the current version of the manuscript is not suitable for publication. I believe that the manuscript has potential and the authors will be able to improve it sufficiently. But it will require a significant amount of work. Please find the details below.

1.       The Abstract should be in the form of a single paragraph. In addition to the background, methods and results, it should also include the main conclusions or interpretations. This element is missing in the Abstract and is very limited throughout the manuscript. Please also indicate in the Abstract what location the research described in the manuscript concerns (city, country). Please remember that this part of the manuscript should be of about 200 words.

2.       The paper lacks justification for undertaking the research topic. The authors mentioned the work of other authors, which is beneficial, but they did not point out what they did that was different and original. How does the research described in the manuscript add something new to the existing state of knowledge? What is different, more revealing, in the manuscript? Please add such justification in the Introduction. Please base this justification on the latest research results, because the authors almost do not refer to publications from recent years.

3.       My big concern is also the layout of the manuscript. For example, methodological elements, including equations, appear virtually throughout the manuscript. The authors refer to equations that are not in the manuscript (eqs. 3.6-3.9). Equations are numbered differently than references in the text. It is also difficult to see the connection between Figure 3.8 and the research. The side ditch has a rectangular/trapezoidal cross-section (Figure 4.2). Figure 4.1 shows that the central irrigation channel also has a trapezoidal cross-section. Please justify this in the text. In addition, there is no discussion of the obtained results in the context of research by other authors. The discussion in section 2 has nothing to do with it. These are just some of the issues. I suggest organizing your manuscript into five main sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. Please follow mdpi guidelines for formatting manuscripts. Sections must be numbered consecutively, as must tables and figures. Currently, points 1 and 2 on pages 7-10 are quite confusing.

4.       In the Materials and Methods section, please add a subsection describing the case study. Please provide the exact location, describe the catchment area and the climatic conditions within it.

5.       In the reviewer's opinion, some figures are unnecessary and unnecessarily lengthen the manuscript. For example, Figure 3.6 is an extension of Figure 3.1. This is the same figure, just with new elements added. I assume these are screenshots because the pool names are underlined. It would be much better to add a map of the area with the exact location and actual dimensions of individual pavements marked. Figures 3.2 and 4.1 can also be combined (similar situation as above). On the other hand, Figures 3.3-3.5 can be merged into one Figure, such as Figs. 4a, 4b, 4c. Placing the diagrams side by side and equalizing the scale would give better insight into individual solutions and layer thicknesses. What do Figures 3.10 and 3.11 show? The text lacks a reference and description. In the case of Figure 4.2, some cross-sections are identical, so the number of cross-sections can be reduced. Sections A, B, D and E can be represented as one. Given that there is not much detail in the figures, you can try to put four in one line. In the case of 4.6-4.10, you may consider leaving one example and moving the rest to Appendix.

6.       Figures 4.3 and 4.4 require explanation. In Figure 4.3 only one measured value is included. Why not more? In the case of Figure 4.4, the measured values differ significantly from those assumed based on the Maaning equation. Why wasn't the full range of values obtained from this equation accepted? Was it not possible to measure higher water depths? Please provide a detailed explanation in the text of the manuscript.

7.       As I mentioned above, please add a discussion of the results in the context of the achievements of other researchers to the manuscript. In the discussion, please also refer to the issue of using rainwater from the road for irrigation (lines 418-419). What about pollutants contained in rainwater? The authors can also comment more broadly on flood mitigation. How does the presented solution compare to other methods of flood prevention?

8.       The literature review should definitely be expanded and supplemented with newer items. Relatively recent publications [21-24], which were added at the end of the manuscript, are currently not cited in the text.

Please also consider the following issues:

- The text requires many editorial corrections. In some places in the manuscript the symbols have subscripts, in others they do not. The value entries are missing superscripts. Many paragraphs are just one sentence long. There are unnecessary spaces between paragraphs. Figures and tables are incorrectly numbered. In some places, authors refer to literature by name and year instead of a number in square brackets. Please also remember that each symbol should have a different designation. Currently, they are misleading (lines 370-371).

- Please enter the paper type in line 1. Please also mark the corresponding author and check affiliation links.

- Please separate keywords with semicolons. Only two of them are different than the words in the title, so please add more.

- When referring to manuals and guidelines, please provide reference numbers. Please see line 40 (pemeable pavement manual), line 82 (Where do the values in the Table 2.1 come from?), line 195, line 454, etc.

- It is preferable to include references to literature in the text for specific information, rather than in section headings (line 70).

- Line 179 – What is “[location]”?

- What does the symbol used in Table 3.2 mean?

- Lines 438-440 – Some of this information is previously presented in the figure. It is better to supplement the figure with the porosity values than to repeat these data.

- Table 4.1 - Are 0.016 and 0.025 a range of values or two different values taken into account for calculations?

Best regards

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

• The Abstract should be in the form of a single paragraph. In addition to the background, methods and results, it should also include the main conclusions or interpretations. This element is missing in the Abstract and is very limited throughout the manuscript. Please also indicate in the Abstract what location the research described in the manuscript concerns (city, country). Please remember that this part of the manuscript should be of about 200 words.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

Corrections have been made to the content of the abstract, as detailed in P1.

 

• The paper lacks justification for undertaking the research topic. The authors mentioned the work of other authors, which is beneficial, but they did not point out what they did that was different and original. How does the research described in the manuscript add something new to the existing state of knowledge? What is different, more revealing, in the manuscript? Please add such justification in the Introduction. Please base this justification on the latest research results, because the authors almost do not refer to publications from recent years.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions.

The differences between this paper and other studies and the literature review in recent years have been supplemented in 1. Introduction.

 

• My big concern is also the layout of the manuscript. For example, methodological elements, including equations, appear virtually throughout the manuscript. The authors refer to equations that are not in the manuscript (eqs. 3.6-3.9). Equations are numbered differently than references in the text. It is also difficult to see the connection between Figure 3.8 and the research. The side ditch has a rectangular/trapezoidal cross-section (Figure 4.2). Figure 4.1 shows that the central irrigation channel also has a trapezoidal cross-section. Please justify this in the text. In addition, there is no discussion of the obtained results in the context of research by other authors. The discussion in section 2 has nothing to do with it. These are just some of the issues. I suggest organizing your manuscript into five main sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. Please follow mdpi guidelines for formatting manuscripts. Sections must be numbered consecutively, as must tables and figures. Currently, points 1 and 2 on pages 7-10 are quite confusing.

 

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

1. The equation number of the article has been adjusted
2. The formula corresponding to the original Figure 3.8(revised version of Figure 2.7) has been supplemented, as detailed in P9.
3. The design of the central irrigation ditch has been supplemented in the text, as detailed in P13.
4. The composition of the articles has been rearranged by the members' suggestions.

 

• In the Materials and Methods section, please add a subsection describing the case study. Please provide the exact location, describe the catchment area and the climatic conditions within it.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

The location, catchment area, and climate of the case have been supplemented for details in P4.

 

• In the reviewer's opinion, some figures are unnecessary and unnecessarily lengthen the manuscript. For example, Figure 3.6 is an extension of Figure 3.1. This is the same figure, just with new elements added. I assume these are screenshots because the pool names are underlined. It would be much better to add a map of the area with the exact location and actual dimensions of individual pavements marked. Figures 3.2 and 4.1 can also be combined (similar situation as above). On the other hand, Figures 3.3-3.5 can be merged into one Figure, such as Figs. 4a, 4b, 4c. Placing the diagrams side by side and equalizing the scale would give better insight into individual solutions and layer thicknesses. What do Figures 3.10 and 3.11 show? The text lacks a reference and description. In the case of Figure 4.2, some cross-sections are identical, so the number of cross-sections can be reduced. Sections A, B, D and E can be represented as one. Given that there is not much detail in the figures, you can try to put four in one line. In the case of 4.6-4.10, you may consider leaving one example and moving the rest to Appendix.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

The relevant charts have been adjusted.

 

 

 

• Figures 4.3 and 4.4 require explanation. In Figure 4.3 only one measured value is included. Why not more? In the case of Figure 4.4, the measured values differ significantly from those assumed based on the Maaning equation. Why wasn't the full range of values obtained from this equation accepted? Was it not possible to measure higher water depths? Please provide a detailed explanation in the text of the manuscript.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

1. This paper selected a few days when the weather forecast was heavy rain and carried out on-site measurements. However, the rainfall intensity at that time could not make the side ditch reach the high water level, so the measured data were used to estimate the flow of the low water level, and the flow corresponding to the high water level and the full water level was estimated with the Manning formula.
2. Relevant explanations have been added to the article, refer to P15.

 

• As I mentioned above, please add a discussion of the results in the context of the achievements of other researchers to the manuscript. In the discussion, please also refer to the issue of using rainwater from the road for irrigation (lines 418-419). What about pollutants contained in rainwater? The authors can also comment more broadly on flood mitigation. How does the presented solution compare to other methods of flood prevention?

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

1. At present, water quality testing will be carried out before farmland irrigation to ensure that the pollution is not exceeded before use.
2. Relevant literature on the removal of harmful elements in water has been collected, see P13, and it is expected to refer to the data collected in this paper to remove harmful elements in water in the future, to ensure the quality of rainwater reuse, refer to P18.

 

• The literature review should definitely be expanded and supplemented with newer items. Relatively recent publications [21-24], which were added at the end of the manuscript, are currently not cited in the text.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

The literature in recent years has been supplemented in the text and discussed.

 

 

 

The text requires many editorial corrections. In some places in the manuscript the symbols have subscripts, in others they do not. The value entries are missing superscripts. Many paragraphs are just one sentence long. There are unnecessary spaces between paragraphs. Figures and tables are incorrectly numbered. In some places, authors refer to literature by name and year instead of a number in square brackets. Please also remember that each symbol should have a different designation. Currently, they are misleading (lines 370-371).

 

- Please enter the paper type in line 1. Please also mark the corresponding author and check affiliation links.

 

- Please separate keywords with semicolons. Only two of them are different than the words in the title, so please add more.

 

- When referring to manuals and guidelines, please provide reference numbers. Please see line 40 (pemeable pavement manual), line 82 (Where do the values in the Table 2.1 come from?), line 195, line 454, etc.

 

- It is preferable to include references to literature in the text for specific information, rather than in section headings (line 70).

 

- Line 179 – What is “[location]”?

 

- What does the symbol used in Table 3.2 mean?

 

- Lines 438-440 – Some of this information is previously presented in the figure. It is better to supplement the figure with the porosity values than to repeat these data.

 

- Table 4.1 - Are 0.016 and 0.025 a range of values or two different values taken into account for calculations?

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

1. Re-adjust according to the format template.
2. Keywords have been modified, refer to P1.
3. Unclear parts of literature citations have been adjusted.
4. The original Line 179 - "[location]" is incorrectly planted and has been corrected.
5. The contents of Table 3.2 of the original version have been adjusted, and refer to Table 2.2 of P7 for details.
6. The contents of original Lines 438-440 have been adjusted, refer to P14.
7. Table 4.1 of the original version has been adjusted, and refer to Table 3.1 of P15 for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks For your improvement.

Author Response

Thank you for serving as a reviewer. Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for considering some of my comments. The quality of the manuscript has been improved. However, there remained a few issues that the authors did not take into account and addressed them.

The discussion is still very limited and does not contain references to the research results of other authors. Please expand it.

Editorial errors are still present in the manuscript. This includes, for example, incorrect numbering of tables and figures, lack of detailed data regarding the cited references (volume, paper number - page 19) and others. Please check in detail and correct the entire manuscript.

Best regards

Author Response

• The discussion is still very limited and does not contain references to the research results of other authors. Please expand it.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

Other research results have been included in the discussion, and this paper is extended based on them, as detailed in P18.

 

• Editorial errors are still present in the manuscript. This includes, for example, incorrect numbering of tables and figures, lack of detailed data regarding the cited references (volume, paper number - page 19) and others. Please check in detail and correct the entire manuscript.

Thanks to Reviewer for your suggestions

The chart numbers in this article have been reviewed and the details of the literature have been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx