Critical Standard Normalized Rapid Suppression Hydraulic Index and Its Estimation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work contains extensive research (tested by real ship tests and theoretical analysis) to establish the formula for estimating the flow velocity fraction and slope fraction by the main parameters of ship type, that can provide a reference for determining rapid suppression hydraulic index when detailed ship type data is missing.
However, the work has many technical shortcomings.
Chapter 2 defines the problem, according to reference 6 - the monthly report, not the Review of the research progress of the rapid suppression index. Such a chapter makes no sense. It is necessary to provide an overview of the scientific literature. Also, the text in line 73 is not appropriate because only one literature is cited.
Technically, it is necessary to pay attention to the lines: 9,32,35,55,147,162, Tables1, 165,178,198, 209, 334,525,569.
In order to increase the quality of the work, it is necessary to connect the results of the research with future research
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point1: Chapter 2 defines the problem, according to reference 6 - the monthly report, not the Review of the research progress of the rapid suppression index. Such a chapter makes no sense. It is necessary to provide an overview of the scientific literature. Also, the text in line 73 is not appropriate because only one literature is cited.
Response1:We thank the reviewer for pointing our this issue.We should indeed modify the section.The paper has been modified according to the revision opinions, the research progress of the beach elimination index has been added, and the relevant literature has been cited. Please see attachment file red place for details.
Point2:Technically, it is necessary to pay attention to the lines:9,32,35,55,147,162, Tables1, 165,178,198, 209, 334,525,569.
Response2:We agree with this suggestion and have modified the terminology throughout the text as appropriate.The underlined sentences marked in the original text were modified according to the revision opinions. Please see attachment file blue place for details.
Point3:In order to increase the quality of the work, it is necessary to connect the results of the research with future research.
Response3:We quite agree with this suggestion and have revised the paper.According to the revision opinion, a text is added at the conclusion of the article, which supplements a series of studies that may be carried out in the future according to the research results of the article. Please see attachment file purple place for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
(1) The authors may need to find someone with a good English background to revise grammar and sentences carefully in order to convey a clear and correct meaning.
(2) The whole structure of the paper is bad. There are 14 sections, and many sections are very short.
(3) The “Introduction” section should introduce the background, significance, originality, motivations, novelty and outline of this paper, and the differences between their methodology and the previously ones. The logical relationship between different research contents, such as experimental and numerical study, should be clarified.
(4) The writing of the paper is not academic.
(5) The novelty of the paper is not clear.
(6) The paper needs not only positive statements of the claimed superiority of the proposed method, but a clear statement of anything that might be lost, with thoughtful reflection on the practical difference of the predicted behavior. The best academic papers are quite different from pure promotional material in that they should be quite open about weaknesses as well as strengths in the original content of any proposed method.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point1:The authors may need to find someone with a good English background to revise grammar and sentences carefully in order to convey a clear and correct meaning.
Response1:We apologize for the poor language of our manuscript.We worked on the manuscript for a long time and the repeated addition and removal sentences and sections obviously led to poor readability. We have now worked on both language and readability and have also involved native English speaker for language correction. We really hope that the flow and language level have been substantially improved. Please see the attachment for details.
Point2:The whole structure of the paper is bad. There are 14 sections, and many sections are very short.
Response2:We apologize for the confusion generated by the previous version of manuscript and sincerely hope that our structure is now easier to follow with this new version.The overall structure of the paper has been modified according to the amendments, and the shorter chapters of the paper have been modified and integrated into six chapters.Please see the attachment for details.
Point3:The “Introduction” section should introduce the background, significance, originality, motivations, novelty and outline of this paper, and the differences between their methodology and the previously ones. The logical relationship between different research contents, such as experimental and numerical study, should be clarified.
Response3:We thank the reviewer for pointing our this issue.We should indeed modify the introduction.The introduction part of the paper has been revised according to the revision opinions. In the introduction, the background and innovation of this paper are introduced, and the shortcomings of the existing research are pointed out. Please see attachment file red place for details.
Point4:The writing of the paper is not academic.
Response4:We respectfully disagree. This paper reviews the current determination methods and expression forms of the hydraulic index of the floodplain, points out the obvious shortcomings of the existing unit energy comprehensive index, such as the inconsistency of the standard, and carries out the hydrostatic speed test of 500 tons of ships. Using the data for analysis and verification, the empirical formula of the estimated velocity fraction and slope fraction of the ship type is established, and the scope of use is pointed out, which has certain academic and innovative.Please see the attachment for details.
Point5:The novelty of the paper is not clear.
Response5:According to the opinions, the explanation is as follows: Compared with the past research, the traditional research on the hydraulic index of inland river floodplain elimination is fixed on the study of velocity gradient. The existing comprehensive index of unit energy is not uniform. Different ship types have different floodplain elimination indexes, which are inconvenient to apply and not applicable. Based on the principle of ship effective thrust and navigation resistance balance, this paper unifies the beach elimination index, and the critical index will not be affected by the ship type. The feasibility and convenience of its application in beach forming area, love navigation area and ship beaching capacity are verified by examples. Please see the attachment for details.
Point6:The paper needs not only positive statements of the claimed superiority of the proposed method, but a clear statement of anything that might be lost, with thoughtful reflection on the practical difference of the predicted behavior. The best academic papers are quite different from pure promotional material in that they should be quite open about weaknesses as well as strengths in the original content of any proposed method.
Response6:We agree with this suggestion and have modified the terminology throughout the text as appropriate.According to the opinions and suggestions, this paper has been modified, put forward the positive discussion and breakthrough of this paper, and discussed the shortcomings of this paper, as well as the direction of further research, looking forward to further research in the future. Please see attachment file blue place for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Nerd to add in references a book or a paper that explains the concept and the actual method
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments:
Point1:Nerd to add in references a book or a paper that explains the concept and the actual method.
Response1:We quite agree with this suggestion and have revised the paper.According to the opinions, references and papers have been added to the article, and the concept and practical methods of interpretation have been added. Please see attachment file red place for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors saw and respected the reviewers' suggestions and improved the quality of their work. Look at the technical arrangement in Figure 3 and Table 5 and fix it.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point1: The authors saw and respected the reviewers' suggestions and improved the quality of their work. Look at the technical arrangement in Figure 3 and Table 5 and fix it.
Response1: We thank the reviewer for pointing this issue. We should indeed modify the section. The paper has been modified according to the revision opinions, we change the title of Figure 3 ‘Test of ship’ to ‘Test ship’, Remove ‘船’ and change ‘m.s’ to ‘m·s’ from Table 5.Please See the revised manuscript and cover letter for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the authors have revised the paper, the issues raised by me still remain. Especially, the writing, structure and novelty of the paper are bad.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point1: Although the authors have revised the paper, the issues raised by me still remain. Especially, the writing, structure and novelty of the paper are bad.
Response1: We thank the reviewer for pointing this issue. We should indeed modify the section. The paper has been modified according to the revision opinions, we make grammatical modifications by MDPI, change our manuscript structure ,discuss and modify the novelty of the article again. Please See the revised manuscript and cover letter for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
