Experimental Study on the Influence of New Permeable Spur Dikes on Local Scour of Navigation Channel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the authors designed a new type of permeable spur dike structure based on WES curve of overflow weir of hydraulic engineering, and conducted movable bed experiments, including the traditional rock-fill dike, new structure rock-fill spur dike and spur dikes with different permeability. The morphological characteristics of scour hole at dike head were analyzed, and a formula for calculating the maximum depth of scour hole was proposed. This experimental study is of great significant to the reliability of spur dikes and the sustainability of navigation channel.

There are some minor issues for revision reference:

1. In Introduction, the cited reference more than two authors should be added by "et al." after the first author, such as Haghnazar [1], Fazli [2], Kuhnle [3], Masjedi [4], Nasrollahi [5], Zhou [7], and Elawady [9]. In the case of the cited reference just two authors, both author names need to be listed, such as Osman [8] and Nath [10].

2. Line 137, the upstream slope 1.3 should be 1:1.3.

3. Line 152-153, please check the sentence “S is the projected area of is the projected area of impermeable dike body”. Which should be “S is the projected area of impermeable dike body”.

4. Figure 11. Measuring system can be merged into Figure 10.

5. Some Chinese references need to be added "in Chinese with English abstract".

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer’s Comments

Title: Experimental study on the influence of new permeable spur dike on local scour of navigation channel

The authors performed experiments, considering different flow parameters and dimensions of spur dike. Results show that comprehensively consider the influence of factors such as spur dike permeability, effective scouring time and width of bottom protection structure, the formula for calculating the depth of spur dike scour holes is fitted. The research results are beneficial to the reliability of spur dikes and the sustainability of navigation channel. The main limits concern: the confusion and lack of details in the presentation; the incomplete literature review where many important works on the investigated topic are. I feel major revisions are necessary for finalization of your work. Please consider my comments as given below.

·         At present, abstract is not written in the sequence. Author must revise the abstract part.

·         Introduction is not upto the mark. Why this study is important, authors must highlight it. Objectives of the present study are not clear. Language is bit confusing so kindly follow it up as paper requirement. Some latest paper are on scour and spur dike are needed like https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127330; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127549

·         In general, all the symbols should be defined where they first appear in the text

·         What is Purity of collected experimental data? Better description of experimental setup and data analysis is required. How authors will say, quality of used data is good or average. This point can be beneficial for new readers.

·         Methodology and experimental work must be defined in a better way. It’s an important part of the paper.

·         Some important items are not mentioned and evaluated, e.g. the various notations used, detailed illustration needful for the case study, and so on. Please make corrections accordingly.

·         Use same font size and style in all figures.

·         Result analysis should be confined and easy to understand. This would clarify the submission of this paper to Sadhana Journal.  The applications of this study should be highlighted as per Journal’s point of view.

 

·         Some important and latest literature on scour and sediment transport is still missing from the manuscript. Authors must update the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Your work is interesting with good results. This manuscript should be carefully revised before publication. I gave many comments as attached file. 

In general, the structure of your writing is not very clear. In the introduction section, you need to cite more previous studies to emphasize your study is needed and important. You also mentioned it but no citation found. The way you caption is too short, and somewhat strange, you need to give some details or explanations or something there. 

There is no Discussion section in your manuscript. I think you can divide some last sections in the Results into Discussion. You mentioned your work is much better than previous, but there is not clear in the results section. I think you should reconstruct this section.

Further details can be found in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have made all the required changes. Hence, the manuscript can be accepted in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

I agree with the revised manuscript