Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigate the performance of two types of temporary groin using laboratory experiments.  This is motivated by examples from a particular location.  A somewhat limited range of cases is considered - two types of groin, two flow speeds - but useful insights are gained and the experiments have been very carefully conducted and described. Overall the paper is well-organised, with good use of figures, but there are some aspects of the English, and a couple of other points of presentation, that could be improved, listed mainly by line number below.

 

10, 13, 14 groins (not groin)

11 tidal currents

16 "the geotube groin" and "the mixed clay-geotube groin"

34, 38 should have space between number and unit (55.7 km and 16.47 km)

72, 101 and elsewhere: I don't know what you mean by "temporary wading project"

74 made in understanding

77 insufficient

79 observations of its

91 before the bore

104 innovative

[these are corrections for the Introduction, other sections need checking for English too]

Perhaps end the Introduction with a brief outline of the rest of the paper.

Given the limited number of cases studied here, I think you need to be cautious in the Conclusions in claiming how well the mixed clay-geotube groin might work in other situations.  Reasonable to say it looks promising, but perhaps suggest some further work that could be done to support what you've found here.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above - needs some checking, but just some minor errors.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Comment: The authors investigate the performance of two types of temporary groin using laboratory experiments.  This is motivated by examples from a particular location.  A somewhat limited range of cases is considered - two types of groin, two flow speeds - but useful insights are gained and the experiments have been very carefully conducted and described. Overall the paper is well-organised, with good use of figures, but there are some aspects of the English, and a couple of other points of presentation, that could be improved, listed mainly by line number below.

Response: First of all, the authors very much appreciate the review comments. The manuscript has been carefully revised wherever appropriate. The following is written in response to the Reviewer’s comments. To help understand, the Reply is set in blue.

 

Comment: 10, 13, 14 groins (not groin)

Response: Yes, it has been revised.

 

Comment: 11 tidal currents

Response: Yes, it has been revised.

 

Comment: 16 "the geotube groin" and "the mixed clay-geotube groin"

Response: Yes, it has been revised.

 

Comment: 34, 38 should have space between number and unit (55.7 km and 16.47 km)

Response: Yes, it has been revised.

 

Comment: 72, 101 and elsewhere: I don't know what you mean by "temporary wading project"

Response: ‘Wading’ has been changed into ‘water-related’ for better understanding.

 

Comment: 74 made in understanding

Response: Yes, it has been revised.

 

Comment: 77 insufficient

Response: Yes, it has been revised.

 

Comment: 79 observations of its

Response: Yes, it has been revised.

 

Comment: 91 before the bore

Response: Yes, it has been revised.

 

Comment: 104 innovative

Response: Yes, it has been revised.

 

Comment: [these are corrections for the Introduction, other sections need checking for English too]

Response: Thank you for your comments, other sections have been checked and revised.

 

Comment: Perhaps end the Introduction with a brief outline of the rest of the paper.

Response: Thank you for your comments, a brief outline has been added.

 

Comment: Given the limited number of cases studied here, I think you need to be cautious in the Conclusions in claiming how well the mixed clay-geotube groin might work in other situations.  Reasonable to say it looks promising, but perhaps suggest some further work that could be done to support what you've found here.

Response: Thank you for your comments. It has been revised in the Conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed paper presents an interesting application of geosynthetic structure for protection against strong river water motion.

Suggested the improvement of captions in Fig. 6 and 7 with a metric reference and of captions in Fig. 8.

The topic is regarding the contribution of anti-erosion of particular geosynthetic-soil tubular structures along rivers and it's interesting as it describes some mitigation techniques. This field is typically experimental and trial testing - in situ testing are essential. New comparative data with other more structural traditional techniques for river embankment protection. The paper is sufficiently clear, I am not a native English speaker, but I can understand. Authors have addressed the main question posed, a description of the performance of the structure on site, advantages, and limitations.

Generally, a consideration of durability, maintenance costs and environmental compatibility of synthetic materials should be provided in order to preserve natural water from dispersion of artificial material due to failures.

Thanks

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comment: The proposed paper presents an interesting application of geosynthetic structure for protection against strong river water motion.

Response: First of all, the authors very much appreciate the review comments. The manuscript has been carefully revised wherever appropriate. The following is written in response to the Reviewer’s comments. To help understand, the Reply is set in blue.

 

Comment: Suggested the improvement of captions in Fig. 6 and 7 with a metric reference and of captions in Fig. 8.

Response: Thanks for your comments. It has been the revised in the manuscript.

 

Comment: The topic is regarding the contribution of anti-erosion of particular geosynthetic-soil tubular structures along rivers and it's interesting as it describes some mitigation techniques. This field is typically experimental and trial testing - in situ testing are essential. New comparative data with other more structural traditional techniques for river embankment protection. The paper is sufficiently clear, I am not a native English speaker, but I can understand. Authors have addressed the main question posed, a description of the performance of the structure on site, advantages, and limitations.

Response: Thanks for the review’s positive comments.

 

Comment: Generally, a consideration of durability, maintenance costs and environmental compatibility of synthetic materials should be provided in order to preserve natural water from dispersion of artificial material due to failures.

Response: Your suggestions are very much appreciated. However, the durability, maintenance costs and environmental compatibility are currently difficult to quantify, which need further research in the future. This comment has been added in the Conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present experimental studies of a geotube groin and a mixed clay-geotube groin under various flow conditions. Based on their research, they found that the influence of tidal flows on geomorphic changes around the groins was more pronounced during spring tides than during neutral tides. Additionally, they conclude that mixed clay and geotube groins were more suitable for cofferdam construction in highly tidal estuaries compared to alternative geotube groins. The work is very well written. The research results are presented in an interesting way. Only the literature research is too small, but this does not detract from the scientific value of the work. I support the work for further stages towards publication. I have no critical comments.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Comment: The authors present experimental studies of a geotube groin and a mixed clay-geotube groin under various flow conditions. Based on their research, they found that the influence of tidal flows on geomorphic changes around the groins was more pronounced during spring tides than during neutral tides. Additionally, they conclude that mixed clay and geotube groins were more suitable for cofferdam construction in highly tidal estuaries compared to alternative geotube groins. The work is very well written. The research results are presented in an interesting way. Only the literature research is too small, but this does not detract from the scientific value of the work. I support the work for further stages towards publication. I have no critical comments.

Response: Thanks for the review’s positive comments. More references have been added and the manuscript has been carefully revised wherever appropriate.