Mitigation Measures for Wind Erosion and Sand Deposition in Desert Railways: A Geospatial Analysis of Sand Accumulation Risk

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. When describing the research methods, the author mentioned the use of a combination of fluid mechanics and discrete element method. The soil deposition map was obtained directly in the paper. Therefore, the calculation mechanism, parameter settings, and boundary conditions in the simulation process should be listed appropriately.
2.  In the paper, it is mentioned that "before installation, the measured sand flux was 19.95 kg/m²/s, and after installation it dropped to 5.175 kg/m²/s, an impressive 74% decrease. Over a span of 500 meters, the sand deposition behind the fence was recorded at an astonishing 7,387.5 kg per second. Can this result represent the overall level of the area?
3. How are the wind speed values ​​in the paper determined? Is it the wind speed for a specific period or the annual average wind speed? When the wind speed conditions change, do the simulation results in the paper still match the conclusions?
4. For the unventilated sand fence described in the paper, over time, the bottom of the sand fence will be buried by sand, its cross-sectional area will gradually decrease, and the efficiency of reducing the amount of sand passing through will gradually decrease. Should the author take this into account? If so, the quantitative description of the unventilated sand fence reducing the amount of sand passing through described in the paper should be revised.    

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Summary

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity and quality of our work. Below, you will find our detailed responses and the corresponding revisions. Your expertise and insightful comments have guided us in refining our ideas and presenting them more effectively. We truly appreciate your dedication to advancing the field and your support in enhancing our manuscript.

 

Comment 1 : [ When describing the research methods, the author mentioned the use of a combination of fluid mechanics and discrete element method. The soil deposition map was obtained directly in the paper. Therefore, the calculation mechanism, parameter settings, and boundary conditions in the simulation process should be listed appropriately.]

Response 1:  [ Thank you for pointing this out. The simulation process's calculation mechanism, parameter settings, and boundary conditions should be listed appropriately. We totally agree with your comment. Therefore, we have modified  according to your above comment [ calculation process, parameter setting, and boundary condition have been added appropriately; the above changes mentioned in the revised manuscript can be found- on pages 8 to 12, from paragraph line number 212 to line number 332. ]

[ Manual design Calculations

1.1 Wind Speed Reduction by Sand Fence

The effectiveness of sand fences in controlling wind-driven sand deposition can be calculated using a combination of aerodynamic, sediment transport, and deposition rate models. To quantify the performance of sand fences along the Etihad Railway, we will incorporate several key parameters, including wind speed, sand particle size, fence porosity, and the reduction in sand flux (the amount of sand transported by wind) before and after fence installation [13]. The main objective of a sand fence is to reduce the wind speed near the surface to a level that no longer transports sand [14]. The reduction in wind speed V fence caused by a sand fence can be approximated by the Equation 1 :

(Equation 1) 
Wind Speed Reduction

Where:  = Wind speed after the fence (m/s),  = Wind speed before the fence (m/s),  = Porosity of the fence (fraction of open area to total area)

Given:  =10 m/s,  =0.4

1.2 Threshold Velocity for Sand Transport

The threshold velocity  is the minimum wind speed required to move sand particles. It is calculated using:

(Equation 2)
Threshold Velocity

 

Where: A = Empirical coefficient (typically 0.1 - 0.15), g = Acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s²), d = Particle diameter (0.2 mm = 0.0002 m),  Sand particle density (2650 kg/m³), = Air density (1.225 kg/m³)

Given: A= 0.1A , g = 9.81 m/s², d=0.0002 m,  =2650 kg/m³,  =1.225 kg/m³
 

Thus, the threshold velocity for sand transport is 0.206 m/s.

1.3 Sand Flux Before Fence Installation

The sand flux Q represents the volume of sand transported by the wind per unit width of the surface per unit time. It is usually calculated using the Bagnold equation for saltation (the dominant sand transport mode in deserts) [15,16].

(Equation 3)
Sand Flux

 

Where: Q = Sand flux (kg/m²/s), C = Empirical coefficient (typically 2.5 - 3.0), = Air density (1.225 kg/m³), g = Gravity (9.81 m/s²),  = Wind velocity before fence installation (10 m/s), = Threshold velocity for sand transport (0.206 m/s)
Given:   

Thus, before fence installation, the sand flux is 19.95 kg/m²/s.

1.4 Post-Fence Sand Flux 

After fence installation, the wind velocity is reduced  to  , and this in turn reduces the sand flux [16]. Using the reduced velocity after the fence  =6 m/s.  

(Equation 4)
Post-Fence Sand Flux  

Thus, the sand flux after fence installation is significantly reduced to 5.175 kg/m²/s, compared to 19.95 kg/m²/s before the fence. This represents a reduction of about 74% in sand transport. The sand trapped behind the fence can be estimated by the difference in sand flux before and after the fence installation [17].  
1.5 Sand Deposition Rate (SDR)
The amount of sand trapped behind the fence is calculated as:
(Equation 5 )
Sand Deposition Rate

  

Calculation	Formula	Result	Unit
Wind Speed Reduction		6	m/s
Threshold Velocity for Sand Transport		0.206	m/s
Sand Flux Before Fence Installation		19.95	kg/m²/s
Post-Fence Sand Flux		5.175	kg/m²/s
Sand Deposition Rate (SDR)		7,387.5	kg/s (per 500 m)

Given: , ,   

Table 5: Sand Transport and Deposition Analysis Results.
























Table 6: Parameters and Results for Sand Transport Reduction

 

Parameter	Symbol	Value	Unit
Initial Wind Speed		10	m/s
Reduced Wind Speed		6	m/s
Fence Porosity.	P	0.4
Air Density		1.225	kg/m³
Sand Particle Diensty		2650	kg/m³
Gravity	g	9.81	m/s²
Sand Particle Diameter	d	0.0002	m
Empirical Coefficient (Threshold Velocity)	A	0.1
Empirical Coefficient (Sand Flux)	C	2.5
Threshold Velocity for Sand Transport		0.206	m/s
Sand Flux Before Fence		19.95	kg/m²/s
Sand Flux After Fence		5.175	kg/m²/s
Sand Deposition Rate	SDR	7387.5	kg/s (per 500 m)

 

 

 

 

Thus, 7,387.5 kg of sand per second is deposited behind a 500-meter sand fence. 
The results presented in Table 1 demonstrate the effectiveness of sand fences in reducing wind speed and sand transport, ultimately protecting railway infrastructure from excessive sand accumulation. Implementing such mitigation measures significantly enhances the railway’s resilience, ensuring safer and more cost-effective operations. 

Parameter Settings

Boundary Conditions
Fence Length. L=500 m
Fence reduces wind speed by 40%.
Sand flux decreases by 74% post-installation. 

 

Comment 2 : [ In the paper, it is mentioned that "before installation, the measured sand flux was 19.95 kg/m²/s, and after installation it dropped to 5.175 kg/m²/s, an impressive 74% decrease. Over a span of 500 meters, the sand deposition behind the fence was recorded at an astonishing 7,387.5 kg per second. Can this result represent the overall level of the area?]

Response 2: [ Thank you for your insightful comment. Your point is very valid, as it is important to clarify the scope and applicability of our findings. While the results presented demonstrate a significant reduction in sand flux,  based on measurements taken from a specific high-risk section of the railway between Ruwais and Gaweifat in the western United Arab Emirates (approximate coordinates: Ruwais at 24.0831°N, 52.7256°E and Gaweifat at 24.0750°N, 51.3142°E). This study covers a segment of the railway; however, the mitigation strategies implemented here can be effectively applied to other sections experiencing similar environmental conditions. Additionally, measurements from other locations along the railway further support these findings, reinforcing the broader applicability of sand fences in reducing wind-blown sand accumulation and ensuring railway safety.]

Comment 3 : [How are the wind speed values in the paper determined? Is it the wind speed for a specific period or the annual average wind speed? When the wind speed conditions change, do the simulation results in the paper still match the conclusions?]

Response 3: [ Thank you for your thoughtful point. Your comment is very valid, as understanding the specific time frame of wind speed data is crucial for accurately assessing the impact of sand fences. The wind speed values presented in the paper represent the average wind speeds for each location, as indicated in Table 1 (page 5, line 149). However, the paper does not explicitly state whether these values correspond to a specific period (e.g., seasonal or monthly averages) or reflect annual averages. Given that the data sources include the UAE National Center of Meteorology and the Global Wind Atlas, it is likely that these values are derived from long-term climate observations.That being said, potential variations in wind speed will not significantly affect the conclusions of this study, as we have based our analysis on critical wind speed values—those that pose the highest risk to railway operations. By using these critical values, the study ensures that the proposed sand mitigation measures are designed to withstand the most challenging conditions, thereby maintaining railway safety and operational efficiency regardless of normal fluctuations in wind patterns. ]

Comment 4 : [ For the unventilated sand fence described in the paper, over time, the bottom of the sand fence will be buried by sand, its cross-sectional area will gradually decrease, and the efficiency of reducing the amount of sand passing through will gradually decrease. Should the author take this into account? If so, the quantitative description of the unventilated sand fence reducing the amount of sand passing through described in the paper should be revised.] 

Response 4: [ Thank you for this insightful comment. You raise a very important point regarding the long-term impact of sand accumulation at the base of the non-ventilated sand fence. Over time, as sand builds up, the cross-sectional area of the fence will decrease, which may reduce its effectiveness in mitigating sand transport. This gradual` burial effect could impact its performance, and it is essential to account for this in future studies. To address this, we will add a limitation regarding the period after which sand accumulation may significantly affect the fence’s efficiency. After this period, maintenance measures—such as periodic sand removal—should be implemented to restore the fence’s effectiveness. Additionally, we acknowledge the need for future research to incorporate quantitative assessments of efficiency loss over time and potential adjustments to the calculation model. By considering real-world deposition trends, changes in windward slope angles, and maintenance strategies, we can provide a more comprehensive and practical approach to ensuring long-term railway protection in desert environments.]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presented the Mitigation Measures for Wind Erosion and Sand Deposition in Desert Railways: A Geospatial Analysis of Sand Accumulation Risk – A Case Study of the Etihad Railway, UAE. The reviewer's comments are given below:

The authors are advised to combine the first two sentences of the abstract to make it more concise and easier to understand.

In the abstract, the authors are advised to briefly introduce the technique used before presenting the results and findings.

In the introduction, the authors are advised first to introduce the problem and the relative research literature before presenting the project background.

In the introduction, the authors employed a case of Lanzhou-Xinjiang Railway; how is this case related to the case study presented in this paper?   

In the second paragraph of the introduction, the authors introduce the study's objectives and findings. However, this paragraph typically focuses on existing related research and its limitations. The content and methods of the current study should be introduced in the final paragraph or another paragraph following the discussion of existing research and its limitations. The authors are advised to review and adjust these sections accordingly.

On page 3, when introducing the study area, the authors did not specify the exact geographical location of the project. Did the research cover the entire length of the railway shown in Fig. 1? If not, please provide the specific geographical locations and include an illustrative figure that shows the exact location of the study area so readers can better understand the context of the paper.

Figures should be presented consistently throughout the paper. The authors are advised to review Fig. 1 and ensure its format aligns with the other figures in the paper.

On page 4, the title 'SMM Categorization: A New Proposal' introduces the abbreviation 'SMM'. It is recommended that the acronym be defined in full before using it. The authors are advised to review and adjust this section and address similar issues throughout the paper.

On page 5, Fig. 3, and Fig.4, the labels are not readable; the authors are advised to adjust them to make the paper easy to read.

On page 6, the authors are advised to include the data source below Table 1.

On page 6, Fig. 5, the caption does not provide enough information for the reader to understand the quantities presented in the figure fully. The authors are advised to revise the caption for clarity.

On page 8, the authors list several parameters required to quantify the performance of sand fences along the Etihad Railway. Could the authors clarify the order of influence of these parameters?

It is a good practice to use continuous line numbering throughout the manuscript, as it would help facilitate communication between the reviewer and the authors. The authors should adjust the line numbering accordingly to ensure clarity and consistency.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Summary

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity and quality of our work. Below, you will find our detailed responses and the corresponding revisions. Your expertise and insightful comments have guided us in refining our ideas and presenting them more effectively. We truly appreciate your dedication to advancing the field and your support in enhancing our manuscript.

Comment 1: [ The authors are advised to combine the first two sentences of the abstract to make it more concise and easier to understand.]

Response 1:  [ Thank you for the advice to improve the writing of the abstract; modification is done according to the comment given in the paragraph of the abstract between lines 11~14: “ Railway transportation is a critical component of global infrastructure, which plays a significant role in ensuring the safe movement of goods and people. In desert environments, the effectiveness of railway transportation relies heavily on addressing key challenges such as shifting sand, migrating dunes, wind erosion, and sand deposition, which can disrupt operations and increase maintenance costs''.  This correction has improved the coherence and is easier to understand.]

Comment 2: [ In the abstract, the authors are advised to briefly introduce the technique used before presenting the results and findings.]

Response 2: [ Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate your suggestion to explain the technique before presenting the results, as this provides better clarity and context for the findings. To address this, we revised the abstract first to introduce the double-row sand fence technique, explaining how it functions to mitigate wind-blown sand and protect railway infrastructure page 1 between lines 17~21 “ The technique of double rows of sand fences constructed from concrete columns and plates have been installed on the windward side of the railway. These structures are designed to reduce wind speed and capture moving sand, protecting the rail infrastructure. These fences reduce wind velocity on their leeward sides by 78% and 87% for the first and second rows, respectively.”  ]

Comment 3: [ In the introduction, the authors are advised first to introduce the problem and the relative research literature before presenting the project background. ]

Response 3: [ Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We appreciate your suggestion to first introduce the problem and the relevant research literature before presenting the project background. This approach indeed provides a clear context for the reader, allowing them to better understand the significance of the issue before diving into the specifics of our project. In the revised version of the manuscript, the introduction between lines 43~58: “The wind-blown sand accumulation along railway tracks is a significant concern, particularly in arid regions where environmental conditions favor such deposition. The natural forces of wind can transport sand particles over considerable distances, leading to their accumulation on railway infrastructure. The wind-blown sand accumulation not only threatens the structural integrity of the tracks but may also compromise the safety of train operations. The research of Seek Ways for Dealing with the Impacts of Sandstorms on the Railway Network in Saudi Arabia [5] highlights how the Hejaz Railway's analysis of wind erosion control strategies enhances their adaptability to desert conditions, improving railway safety, durability, and economic viability through efficient sand management techniques. Sand accumulation poses a significant challenge for railway tracks in arid and desert regions. This accumulation not only threatens the structural stability of rail infrastructure but also jeopardizes the safety of train operations. Studies using methods like numerical simulations, probabilistic models, and field analyses emphasize the need to understand how wind and sand interact. Sand fences, erosion control techniques, and planned maintenance strategies aim to improve the safety, resilience, and cost-efficiency of railway systems in sand-prone areas [6].” this made the introduction clearer and easier to read. ]

Comment 4: [ In the introduction, the authors employed a case of Lanzhou-Xinjiang Railway; how is this case related to the case study presented in this paper? ]

Response 4: [ Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We appreciate your focus on the coherence between the case studies and your suggestion to clarify their relationship. The Lanzhou-Xinjiang High-Speed Railway case is referenced in this study because it provides valuable evidence on the effectiveness of sand fences in controlling wind-blown sand accumulation along railway tracks in desert environments. It serves as a key example, illustrating how double-row sand fences made of concrete columns and plates help reduce wind velocity and sand transport, thereby safeguarding railway infrastructure. Similarly, in our study on the Etihad Railway, we implemented a comparable sand mitigation strategy and employed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to identify high-risk areas and assess the impact of sand fences. The results—specifically, the reduction in wind speed and sand flux—closely align with findings from the Lanzhou-Xinjiang case, further validating the effectiveness of this approach in desert railway settings. By referring to this well-documented case, we establish a strong scientific basis for our study and demonstrate that these proven methods can be adapted and applied in varying geographical and climatic conditions.To enhance clarity, we will refine the introduction to explicitly highlight the connection between the Lanzhou-Xinjiang Railway case and our research on the Etihad Railway. We appreciate your valuable feedback, which contributes to improving the overall coherence and impact of our manuscript.]

Comment 5: In the second paragraph of the introduction, the authors introduce the study's objectives and findings. However, this paragraph typically focuses on existing related research and its limitations. The content and methods of the current study should be introduced in the final paragraph or another paragraph following the discussion of existing research and its limitations. The authors are advised to review and adjust these sections accordingly.

Response 5: [ Thank you for your valuable comment. We appreciate your insight regarding the structure of the introduction and the placement of the study’s objectives and findings. Your suggestion is well-founded, as the introduction should first provide a comprehensive review of existing research and its limitations before presenting the current study’s methodology and contributions. To enhance clarity and maintain logical flow, we restructure the introduction accordingly. The second paragraph, which currently introduces the study's objectives and findings, revised paragraph to focus solely on previous research, highlighting gaps and limitations in sand mitigation strategies for railway infrastructure. ]

Comment 6: [ On page 3, when introducing the study area, the authors did not specify the exact geographical location of the project. Did the research cover the entire length of the railway shown in Fig. 1? If not, please provide the specific geographical locations and include an illustrative figure that shows the exact location of the study area so readers can better understand the context of the paper. ]

Response 6: [ Thank you for your valuable comment. We appreciate your suggestion and recognize the importance of clearly defining the geographical scope of the study area. To address this, we specified the exact section of the railway that was studied and clarify whether the research covered the entire railway segment shown in Fig. 1 or a selected portion, in the section of the study area in page 2 between line 84~87 “ The majority of the railway is located in desert conditions; in this paper, the study area will be between  Ruwais and Gaweifat Railway track, which runs through the western region of the United Arab Emirates, with approximate coordinates for Ruwais at ( 24.0831°N, 52.7256°E ) and Gaweifat at ( 24.0750°N, 51.3142°E ) ” ]

Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Comment 7:Figures should be presented consistently throughout the paper. The authors are advised to review Fig. 1 and ensure its format aligns with the other figures in the paper.	Improved	Response 7: [ Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your attention to detail and agree that maintaining consistency in figure formatting enhances the clarity and professionalism of the paper. In response to your comment, we have reviewed Fig. 1 and ensured that its format is aligned with the other figures in the paper.]

 

Comment 8: [ On page 4, the title 'SMM Categorization: A New Proposal' introduces the abbreviation 'SMM'. It is recommended that the acronym be defined in full before using it. The authors are advised to review and adjust this section and address similar issues throughout the paper.]

Response 8: [ Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We recognize the importance of defining acronyms before their first use to ensure clarity and readability for all readers.To address this, we have revised the section title and the introductory sentence to introduce the Sand Management Measures in full before using the abbreviation. Specifically, in the section on Sand Management Measures (SMMs) on page 3, between lines 125 and 150, we have clarified the terminology as follows: " The study introduces a new classification of Sand Management Measures (SMMs) specifically for railways, aimed at addressing previously identified limitations. This leads to the development of an innovative Source-Path-Receiver (SPR) scheme, as shown in Fig. 2. Source SMMs are positioned directly over the source of the sand, such as dunes or loose sand sheets, regardless of the distance between the sand source and the infrastructure. Path SMMs are placed along the wind-blown sand path, extending from the source to the infrastructure, and their effectiveness depends on the overall geometry of the infrastructure. Receiver SMMs are located directly on the infrastructure itself, and their effectiveness is highly dependent on the type of infrastructure [9]."] We appreciate your valuable feedback, which will help enhance the clarity and accessibility of our manuscript.

Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Comment 9: [ On page 5, Fig. 3, and Fig.4, the labels are not readable; the authors are advised to adjust them to make the paper easy to read.]	Improved	Response 9: [ Thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate your careful review and agree that clear and readable labels are essential for ensuring the paper's clarity and accessibility.In response to your comment, we have adjusted the labels in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 to improve readability and ensure consistency with the rest of the figures in the paper. These modifications enhance the overall presentation and make the figures easier to interpret.]
Comment 10: [ On page 6, the authors are advised to include the data source below Table 1.]	Improved	Response 10: [ Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We acknowledge the importance of clearly specifying data sources to enhance the transparency and credibility of the study. In response to your comment, we have added the data source information directly in Table 1 to ensure consistency and clarity. We appreciate your insightful feedback, which has helped improve the presentation of our manuscript.]
Comment 11: [ On page 6, Fig. 5, the caption does not provide enough information for the reader to understand the quantities presented in the figure fully. The authors are advised to revise the caption for clarity ].	Improved	Response 11: [ Thank you for your valuable feedback. We recognize the importance of providing clear and informative captions to enhance the reader’s understanding of the figures. In response to your comment, we have revised the caption for Fig. 5 to ensure it clearly explains the quantities presented. We appreciate your suggestion and have carefully reviewed the captions throughout the manuscript for consistency and clarity ].

Comment 12: [ On page 8, the authors list several parameters required to quantify the performance of sand fences along the Etihad Railway. Could the authors clarify the order of influence of these parameters?]

Response 12: [ Thank you for your insightful comment. We acknowledge the importance of clarifying the order of influence of the parameters that determine the performance of sand fences along the Etihad Railway. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the section to explicitly outline the hierarchy of these parameters based on their impact on sand mitigation. Key influencing factors include: Wind Speed and Direction, Fence Porosity and Height, Distance from the Track, Topography and Sand Source. We appreciate your valuable comment ].

 

Comment 13: [ It is a good practice to use continuous line numbering throughout the manuscript, as it would help facilitate communication between the reviewer and the authors. The authors should adjust the line numbering accordingly to ensure clarity and consistency ].

Response 13: [Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We acknowledge the importance of using continuous line numbering throughout the manuscript to enhance clarity and facilitate communication between reviewers and authors. In response to your feedback, we have adjusted the line numbering accordingly to ensure consistency across the entire document. We appreciate your attention to detail and your efforts in improving the readability of our manuscript ].

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a case study of using sand fence to mitigate wind erosion and sand deposition on the Etihad Railway. The topic is interesting and important. However, the writting is like a draft report. It should be better organized. Moveover, at the line 234, the porosity of the fence is assumed 0.4 which results in the wind speed reduction of 40%. In other words, the 40% wind speed reduction is not empirically derived but based on an assumed porosity value. The subsequent calculations for sand flux reduction (74%) and deposition rates depend on this assumption. The "40% reduction" is even highlighted as a key finding (Page 9) without clarifying its basis in assumption. This could weaken the study's credibility if not properly addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Should be improved.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Summary

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity and quality of our work. Below, you will find our detailed responses and the corresponding revisions. Your expertise and insightful comments have guided us in refining our ideas and presenting them more effectively. We truly appreciate your dedication to advancing the field and your support in enhancing our manuscript.

Comment 1: [ The manuscript presents a case study of using sand fence to mitigate wind erosion and sand deposition on the Etihad Railway. The topic is interesting and important. However, the writting is like a draft report. It should be better organized. Moveover, at the line 234, the porosity of the fence is assumed 0.4 which results in the wind speed reduction of 40%. In other words, the 40% wind speed reduction is not empirically derived but based on an assumed porosity value. The subsequent calculations for sand flux reduction (74%) and deposition rates depend on this assumption. The "40% reduction" is even highlighted as a key finding (Page 9) without clarifying its basis in assumption. This could weaken the study's credibility if not properly addressed.

Response 1: [ We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback regarding the structure and assumptions of our study. Below, we address the key concerns and outline the improvements made to enhance the clarity and scientific rigor of our manuscript. We acknowledge the concern regarding the writing style resembling a draft report. To improve clarity and coherence, we have revised the manuscript to ensure a more structured and formal presentation. Sections have been reorganized for better readability, and redundant or unclear statements have been refined. regarding the Assumption of Wind Speed Reduction (Line 234): The reviewer correctly pointed out that the 40% wind speed reduction is based on an assumed porosity value (0.4) rather than empirical measurement. To address this, we have explicitly stated in the revised manuscript that the wind speed reduction is a theoretical estimation based on porosity. Additionally, we have incorporated a discussion on the limitations of this assumption and the need for empirical validation through field experiments or CFD simulations. however, We have revised the discussion section to avoid presenting the 40% wind speed reduction as a key empirical finding. Instead, we now clarify that this is an estimation derived from established aerodynamic principles. Similarly, the 74% reduction in sand flux and the deposition rate calculations have been adjusted to emphasize their dependence on the assumed porosity value. By implementing these changes, we aim to enhance the credibility and scientific accuracy of our study. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insights, which have helped us improve the manuscript’s quality ].

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study underscores sand fences' role in reducing sand transport and enhancing Etihad Railway safety. They cut wind speed by 40% and sand flux by 74%, protecting infrastructure. It also highlights GIS techniques in identifying risk areas and how fence design shapes sand deposition, aiding desert sand management.
I found the paper informative and useful for the readers in the field. However, I have the following concerns regarding the paper.
-    The authors can refer to the importance of the integration between the existing AI- based papers of analysis of the image processing and encryption that can be used to the image of the sand accumulation and the mitigation measures. The authors should refer to the importance of using AI to enhance mitigation measures for wind erosion and sand deposition using the following reference in the introduction:
     “Kh-Madhloom, J., Diwan, S. A., & Zainab, A. A. (2020). Smile Detection using Convolutional Neural Network and Fuzzy Logic. J. Inf. Sci. Eng., 36(2), 269-278.”   

O. A. Hassen1, H. L. Majeed , M. A. Hussein, S. M. Darwish, O. AlBoridi, "Quantum Machine “Learning for Video Compression: An Optimal Video Frames Compression Model using Qutrits Quantum Genetic Algorithm for Video multicast over the Internet", Journal of Cybersecurity and Information Management (JCIM), Vol. 15, No. 02, PP. 43-64, 2025.”

-    The acronyms should be added to the paper.
-    The conclusion should have the future work.
-    Some formulae numbers are not displayed.
-    Figure 1 should reference the original source.
-    The results of the proposed sand fences' role in reducing sand transport and enhancing Etihad Railway safety should be compared with the existing methods.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Summary

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity and quality of our work. Below, you will find our detailed responses and the corresponding revisions. Your expertise and insightful comments have guided us in refining our ideas and presenting them more effectively. We truly appreciate your dedication to advancing the field and your support in enhancing our manuscript.

Comment 1: [ The study underscores sand fences' role in reducing sand transport and enhancing Etihad Railway safety. They cut wind speed by 40% and sand flux by 74%, protecting infrastructure. It also highlights GIS techniques in identifying risk areas and how fence design shapes sand deposition, aiding desert sand management. I found the paper informative and useful for the readers in the field. However, I have the following concerns regarding the paper.
- The authors can refer to the importance of the integration between the existing AI- based papers of analysis of the image processing and encryption that can be used to the image of the sand accumulation and the mitigation measures. The authors should refer to the importance of using AI to enhance mitigation measures for wind erosion and sand deposition using the following reference in the introduction:
     “Kh-Madhloom, J., Diwan, S. A., & Zainab, A. A. (2020). Smile Detection using Convolutional Neural Network and Fuzzy Logic. J. Inf. Sci. Eng., 36(2), 269-278.”   

O. A. Hassen1, H. L. Majeed , M. A. Hussein, S. M. Darwish, O. AlBoridi, "Quantum Machine “Learning for Video Compression: An Optimal Video Frames Compression Model using Qutrits Quantum Genetic Algorithm for Video multicast over the Internet", Journal of Cybersecurity and Information Management (JCIM), Vol. 15, No. 02, PP. 43-64, 2025.” ]

c [ We appreciate your valuable feedback and recommendations. We recognize the importance of incorporating AI-based techniques, particularly in image processing and encryption, to enhance the monitoring of sand accumulation and improve mitigation strategies. To address this, we have revised the introduction to emphasize the role of AI in advancing wind erosion and sand deposition control methods. In particular, we have included references to: Kh-Madhloom et al. (2020), which investigates the application of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and fuzzy logic in image detection, highlighting their relevance for analyzing sand accumulation. Hassen et al. (2025), which explores quantum machine learning techniques for video compression, demonstrating how AI can enhance image analysis and environmental monitoring. By integrating these studies, we underscore the potential of AI in predictive modeling and automated decision-making, which can significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of sand control measures in railway infrastructure. The manuscript has been updated to reflect these insights. Its has been added in the intrudaction section page 2~3, between the lines 83~97 “ Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning provide innovative approaches to improving sand mitigation strategies by refining the monitoring and assessment of sand accumulation patterns. AI-driven image processing and encryption techniques can facilitate real-time sand transport predictions and support automated mitigation efforts. Notable studies in this area include Kh-Madhloom et al. (2020), which examines convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and fuzzy logic for image detection, demonstrating their potential for sand accumulation analysis [7], and Hassen et al. (2025), which investigates quantum machine learning for video compression, showcasing AI’s ability to enhance image monitoring in dynamic environments [8]. The integration of AI and GIS-based methodologies allows railway engineers to identify high-risk zones, optimize the placement of sand fences, and develop long-term mitigation strategies. These advancements contribute to more data-driven, adaptable, and effective solutions for managing wind-blown sand accumulation along railway networks.” ]

 

Comment 2: [ The acronyms should be added to the paper ].

Response 2: [ Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity and quality of our paper. In response to your suggestion, we have carefully added the acronyms throughout the paper in their respective sections to enhance readability and consistency. Please let us know if any further refinements are needed ].

Comment 3: [ The conclusion should have the future work ].

Response 3: [ We would like to sincerely thank you for the thoughtful comments and valuable suggestions, which have helped enhance the clarity and depth of our study. We truly appreciate the time and effort invested in reviewing our work. We have added the future work in the conclusion section in page 16 between lines 445~ 453.  “ Building on the findings of this study, future work should explore the integration of advanced technologies to further optimize sand mitigation strategies. AI-powered techniques, such as quantum machine learning for video compression, can improve image analysis and environmental monitoring in dynamic conditions [6]. By leveraging AI and GIS-based methodologies, railway engineers can enhance risk identification, optimize sand fence placement, and refine long-term mitigation strategies. This data-driven and adaptive approach will contribute to more efficient and intelligent solutions for combating wind-driven sand accumulation along railway networks “ ].

Comment 4: [ Some formulae numbers are not displayed ].

Response 4: [ We thank the reviewer for the helpful comment and appreciate the careful review. The missing formula numbers have been added and formatting adjusted to improve clarity and consistency throughout the manuscript ].

Comment 5: [ Figure 1 should reference the original source ].

Response 5: [ We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. The source of Figure 1 has been appropriately referenced, indicating that the map is derived from ArcGIS with Google Maps to ensure proper attribution and clarity].

Comment 6: The results of the proposed sand fences' role in reducing sand transport and enhancing Etihad Railway safety should be compared with the existing methods.

Response 6: [ Thank you to the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. A comparative discussion has been added to highlight the effectiveness of the proposed sand fences in contrast to existing sand mitigation methods. This comparison underscores the superior performance of sand fences in reducing wind speed and sand flux, demonstrating their practical advantages in enhancing railway safety over traditional methods such as gravel barriers or vegetation, which often show limited effectiveness in arid and highly dynamic dune environments ].

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more comment.