Progressive Dam-Failure Assessment by Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMajor comments:
1) The title can be “Progressive Dam Failure Assessment by smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method”, because the reader will wonder what does SPH stand for?
2) Page 1, Line 16: No, it does not verify the accuracy of model, verifies the validity of model.
3) Page 3, lines 99-108: These lines as paragraph has only one sentence, which makes understanding very tedious. It should be divided into several sentences to appreciate what is the essence of the article's purpose.
4) Page 3, lines 110-123: this part of the text can be supported by a flow chart.
5) Page 3: Eq. (1) is given without explanation of the terms and symbols. The same is valid for Eq. (2).
6) Page 4: Eqs. (3)-(4) has few undefined symbols as
, and 
is tansor of what? The same problem continues with all the subsequent expressions.
7) Page 9, Figure 5: What does t/s represent on this figure, because there is no explanation of this ratio in the text.
8) Pages 12, Figure 9: There is no explanation in the text for z/m and x/m, so the reader cannot understand the concept.
9) Pages 13-14: Coleman should be properly referenced with number of year in the parenthesis.
10) 4. Conclusions section: There is no recommendations for future research. A study like the one in this article does not mean that the exact solution is reached. The authors can write about what are the missing points of points that may lead to finer calculations in the future.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion, we have responded to your suggestions on an article-by-article basis.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Your manuscript showing the results for simulations of progressive dam failure is very interesting. Please find below a few remarks that need to be addressed before publishing.
General remarks:
The quality of the manuscript doesn’t match the quality of the research conducted: The introduction to the problem is non existent, the references are outdated, the results are presented using low quality figures and discussion is for the most part the readout of the results.
Please writhe the proper introduction to the paper that will provide context for your work; use most recent references to explain the relevance of your work; use more depictive representation of your results to present the most important results more clearly, and discuss them in depth, comparing similarities and differences with the most relevant work in the field.
Specific remarks:
Authors do not offer introduction into the problem that would provide context for their research, instead immediately focusing on dam failure. Paper would benefit from one introductory paragraph that overarches the problem addressed in the paper.
Ln62: What do you mean with „overturning of the fluids“? Overturning is phenomenon associated with waves, and if you have any application that you are targeting, be specific.
SPH Basic Theory section, in my opinion, is not essential and can be referenced. What is the benefit of including in in comparison to current literature?
Particle arrangement is abstract and not given in relation to your work. Please provide more meaningful schematic to depict your setup.
Please provide the proper references to support the transient dam failure model arrangement you use (e.g. ln192)
Can you provide more tangible metric to support your solution visible on Figure 3, apart from e used later on?
The description of the progressive collapse simulation is done in one breath, and needs to be rephrased in a more clear manner. Also, please add all schematics to the Figure 8 as they are simple, but would provide clearer overview of the simulations.
The Figures 9 and 11 are unreadable. Please create contours, or some other visual aid that would represent your results in a clear way.
Technical remarks:
Ln51: Aznalcollard -> Aznalcollar
Ln 78: SPH acronym introduced for the second time
Ln 120: ordinary differential equations and partial differential equations acronyms introduced without full names.
Ln204: Literatures -> please provide the exact reference.
Ln235: use subscript for N1 and N2
Ln237: use subscript for y2i
Variables used on graphs have confusing mixture of variables and units of measure. Please correct this.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion, we have responded to your suggestions on an article-by-article basis, Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have implemented my comments in the revised version with new title and responses to all comments.
