Mathematical Modeling-Based Management of a Sand Trap throughout Operational and Maintenance Periods (Case Study: Pengasih Irrigation Network, Indonesia)
, Ho Huu Loc 1,*, Sigit Nurhady 3, Murtiningrum 2, S. Mohanasundaram 1, Edward Park 4,*, Sangam Shrestha 1 and Sigit Supadmo Arif 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please refer to the attached reviewed paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of ”Mathematical modeling-based management of a sand trap throughout operational and maintenance period (A Case Study: Pengasih Irrigation Network, Indonesia)” by Pradipta et al.
The manuscript describe a study where different samples are collected in a sand trap, acting as entry to an irrigation system, and used to fit a HEC-RAS model. As such a fine setup for a scientific paper. However, the manuscript appear, at present, not in a form where publication can be recommended.
The manuscript it very long, and a lot of space is dedicated to a number of irrelevant things: e,g, 1) a lot of standard methods from HEC-RAS are described I great detail, even though all this information could well just be found in the manual to the program, and 2) a lot of detail about the catchment and associated legislative boundaries are included, but is really not necessary in order to model and understand the hydraulic behavior of the sand trap. The manuscript could greatly benefit from a thorough sharpening to only focus on the main story: using primary observations to fit a model.
Where there is too much detail some places other places lack detail. Please present you primary data in full. This is the most important contribution of the study. Also, for the simulations there must be some data on river flow etc., these are not described at all. Please do so.
Methodologically there is also questionable things in the manuscript. The performance indicators are not at all described in the methodology section, and they are in the results only presented for the chosen solution, not for the rejected parametrizations. This appear very weak. Also, in the optimization (e.g. as presented in Figure 10) only four modes are tested. What if a Manning’s number of 0.024 or 0.026 was better than the one selected? Please run a true, open optimization.
Regarding the conclusions that the sand trap should be flushed every September, I really cannot get it to match the results. One place you state every nine month, and Figures 16 and 17 are very hard read and use for outsiders. Further, in Figure 18 you show that the river flow in September is likely too low to actually flush the system. You need to better support your conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
After carefully reading your manuscript, I have the following suggestions:
1. I understand that your manuscript deals with a very interesting real and practical problem. Therefore, you modeled and found very good practical answers to operate the hydraulic infrastructure. However, I don't understand how you can ensure that you found sustainable answers because more sustainability can be achieved by improving watershed management to reduce erosion. Furthermore, removing the sediments and returning them with the water to the river surely could not be sustainable downstream. Could you rethink and rewrite the sentences related to this idea and improve your manuscript about it?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
