Next Article in Journal
Waterborne Disease Risk Assessment and Mapping for a Floating Village by Combining 3D Hydraulic Simulation and Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment
Next Article in Special Issue
Morphometric Analysis Using Geographical Information System and the Relationship with Precipitation Quantiles of Major Dam Basins in South Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Climate, Water, Soil
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Methods for Estimating Long-Term Flow Fluctuations Using Frequency Characteristics from Wavelet Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 15
Issue 23
10.3390/w15234198
Review Report
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study on Calculating Appropriate Impact Assessment for LID Facility Using A-I-R Curve

Water 2023, 15(23), 4198; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234198
by Youngseok Song 1, Yoonkyung Park 2, Moojong Park 3 and Jingul Joo 4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2023, 15(23), 4198; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234198
Submission received: 5 November 2023 / Revised: 26 November 2023 / Accepted: 1 December 2023 / Published: 4 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advancements in Water and Soil Related Disaster Prevention: Exploring Emerging Topics and Innovations)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled “Study on Calculating Appropriate Design Standards for LID Facility using A-I-R Curve” aims to identify design standards for LID facilities using A-I-R curve. The paper approaches the design standards using SWMM model setup for the e Ochang Science Industrial Complex, situated in Cheongwon-gun, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, South Korea. The authors have calibrated and validated the model before including various LID elements to analyze the runoff reduction rate and its variation with area ratio (A) and rainfall intensity (I). The paper, however, has some serious shortcomings which need to be addressed before further review can be done.

The introduction section needs to have major changes (as suggested by further comments) to provide a logical explanation for the existing gap, need for the study, and the objectives being addressed by the authors. The discussion section needs to be completely re-written, and the authors should focus on discussing their own findings. In the conclusion section, the use of AIR curves has been highlighted for being used as design standards. The figures representing these curves are not clear and it is difficult to review them as such. Also, apart from numerical simulation, have the authors tested these curves against existing facilities, to validate the use of AIR curves and as such propose them as design standards? The curves are for four LID elements, tree filter box, plant garden pot, infiltration ditch, and rain barrel. However, the authors have described eight LID elements (Table 1). There should be justification for using only these four elements. The use of 100mm/hr rainfall intensity for hypothetical scenarios can be supported by actual rainfall intensity. Moreover, the use of Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) curves would have been more appropriate in selecting rainfall intensity for simulation.

 

The authors can find rest of the comments as follows:

1.      The title of the paper has a spelling mistake. Sesign needs to be replaced with design.

2.      The reference notation follows a different font and font size because of which the line spacing is inconsistent. This needs to be improved.

3.      The introduction section is weak. The term low impact development should be explained in more detail, citing how and why it is deemed advantageous in the present development of cities.

4.      Line 38: More details needed on the advantages of LID elements.

5.      Authors should include more examples of the use of LID across the world. The study area is Ochang Science Industrial Complex in South Korea, yet lines 61-62 mention “We analyzed the watershed-level reduction effect following the installation of LID facility in the Brooklyn area of New York, USA”. The authors need to clarify the statement. If they are citing their own work, appropriate references need to be given.

6.      The literature review and the objectives for study have no correlation. A context should be set up through the literature review to justify the need for the present study and gaps the study aims to address. The structure is confusing. The introduction lacks a logical sequence to justify the need for the study.

7.      Lines 47 – if the facility is planned, it can be assumed that it is not yet fully functional. The authors should give examples of already working LID examples.

8.      Line 49 – meter square is written in improper font.

9.      Lines 54-55, are these the conclusions of the authors?

10.  Line 59 – what is meant by correction of LID facility?

11.  Line 61 – watershed level reduction in? The authors need to mention the property they are talking about to give more context to the sentence.

12.  The word LID should be abbreviated once and then the abbreviation should be used further. Also, the authors should keep the case of “low impact development” constant throughout the text.

13.  Line 66 – “Existing prior research” is not right.

14.  Line 68 – “a continuous reduction effect and maintenance plan for the LID facility was proposed through continuous monitoring”. Who proposed this statement?

15.  Line 76, the terms runoff reduction rate, and area ratio should be explained.

16.  Line 87 – explain how SWMM can simulate rainfall? SWMM simulates conditions arising from rainfall. Authors need to correct the statement.

17.  Lines 127-128. How is the pipe network constructed? The authors need to clearly state the various data used and its sources in the manuscript.

18.  Line 137 needs to be corrected.

19.  Line 144-147. The total area of the 7-tree filter box is incorrect in the text.

20.  The title of table 3 does not fit the description. The authors need to be careful about such things before submitting the manuscript.

21.  The term “impervious related factors” is vague and not suitable for technical writing. The model works on specific parameters such as % imperviousness. The authors should include the technical terminologies.

22.  Table 4. The NSE value of 0.43 in zone B is unsatisfactory from modeling perspective (refer the following paper). Have the authors addressed this? (Moriasi, D.N., et al. (2007) Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50, 885-900.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153).

23.  Line 205. Is there a reason or justification for choosing rainfall intensities up to 100mm/hr?

24.  Figure 4 needs to be in better resolution. All the figures should be improved to make them more legible. Larger fonts can be used without cluttering the figures.

25.  Line 277-283 refers to previous work and as such should be part of literature review. The writers should discuss their own findings and refer to previous works for validation or comparison. The complete section needs to be re-written.

26.  Line 319-321 is not conclusion.

27.  It can be understood that the inclusion of LID elements in the SWMM model helps reduce stormwater runoff. But how are the results helping in the design standards of LID elements? The title suggests “calculating appropriate design standards for LID facilities”. However, no such conclusion has been provided.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Poor.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

Thank you for the reviewer's comments. I have written responses to reviewer comments and revised paper pages. The reviewer's corrections are marked in blue. Duplicate opinions are marked in Purple.  Again, thanks for the comments, we made the corrections with the utmost care.

comments

  1. 1. The title of the paper has a spelling mistake. Sesign needs to be replaced with design.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 1)

 

  1. The reference notation follows a different font and font size because of which the line spacing is inconsistent. This needs to be improved.

â–º It is presented as [NUMBER], referring to the journal's reference notation.

 

  1. The introduction section is weak. The term low impact development should be explained in more detail, citing how and why it is deemed advantageous in the present development of cities. â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 2)

 

  1. Line 38: More details needed on the advantages of LID elements.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 1)

 

  1. Authors should include more examples of the use of LID across the world. The study area is Ochang Science Industrial Complex in South Korea, yet lines 61-62 mention “We analyzed the watershed-level reduction effect following the installation of LID facility in the Brooklyn area of New York, USA”. The authors need to clarify the statement. If they are citing their own work, appropriate references need to be given.

â–º In the existing paper, Line 47-55 is a previous study of LID facilities installed in Korea, and Line 56-65 is a study of the effect of reducing stormwater runoff in LID facilities.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. References with LID facilities have been added. (on page 2)

 

  1. The literature review and the objectives for study have no correlation. A context should be set up through the literature review to justify the need for the present study and gaps the study aims to address. The structure is confusing. The introduction lacks a logical sequence to justify the need for the study.

â–º An introduction to LID facilities and information on installation and operation were written in order. Additionally, the text was revised according to the reviewer's comments. A review of previous research and the goals of this study were explained in the last two paragraphs of Chapter 1, explaining the necessity and direction of the study. (on page 1-2)

 

  1. Lines 47 – if the facility is planned, it can be assumed that it is not yet fully functional. The authors should give examples of already working LID examples.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. References with LID facilities have been added. (on page 2)

 

  1. Line 49 – meter square is written in improper font.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 2)

 

  1. Lines 54-55, are these the conclusions of the authors?

â–º It's not a conclusion, it's a summary of that paragraph. It is not a conclusion but a summary of the paragraph. The need for research after reviewing previous studies is the last two paragraphs of Chapter 1.

 

  1. Line 59 – what is meant by correction of LID facility?

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. The 'verification and correction of the LID facility' has been modified to 'verification of the LID facility'. (on page 2)

 

  1. Line 61 – watershed level reduction in? The authors need to mention the property they are talking about to give more context to the sentence.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 2)

 

  1. The word LID should be abbreviated once and then the abbreviation should be used further. Also, the authors should keep the case of “low impact development” constant throughout the text..

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. Except for the reference, 'Low Impact Development' has been changed to 'LID'. (whole page)

 

  1. Line 66 – “Existing prior research” is not right.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. ‘Existing prior research' has been modified to ‘Prior research’. (on page 2)

 

  1. Line 68 – “a continuous reduction effect and maintenance plan for the LID facility was proposed through continuous monitoring”. Who proposed this statement?

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 2)

 

  1. Line 76, the terms runoff reduction rate, and area ratio should be explained.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 3)

 

  1. Line 87 – explain how SWMM can simulate rainfall? SWMM simulates conditions arising from rainfall. Authors need to correct the statement.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 3)

 

  1. Lines 127-128. How is the pipe network constructed? The authors need to clearly state the various data used and its sources in the manuscript.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 4)

 

  1. Line 137 needs to be corrected.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 4)

 

  1. Line 144-147. The total area of the 7-tree filter box is incorrect in the text.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 5)

 

  1. The title of table 3 does not fit the description. The authors need to be careful about such things before submitting the manuscript.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 6)

 

  1. The term “impervious related factors” is vague and not suitable for technical writing. The model works on specific parameters such as % imperviousness. The authors should include the technical terminologies.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 2, 6)

 

  1. Table 4. The NSE value of 0.43 in zone B is unsatisfactory from modeling perspective (refer the following paper). Have the authors addressed this?

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. Additional table descriptions have also been prepared. (on page 6)

 

  1. Line 205. Is there a reason or justification for choosing rainfall intensities up to 100mm/hr?.

â–º ‘Rainfall intensity for the frequency of 500 years in the study area was 100.4mm/hr, and the maximum analysis range of 100mm/hr was set.’ I added an explanation to the paper as well. (on page 8)

 

  1. Figure 4 needs to be in better resolution. All the figures should be improved to make them more legible. Larger fonts can be used without cluttering the figures.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 8)

 

  1. Line 277-283 refers to previous work and as such should be part of literature review. The writers should discuss their own findings and refer to previous works for validation or comparison. The complete section needs to be re-written.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 11)

 

  1. Line 319-321 is not conclusion.

â–º I deleted it after reflecting the reviewer's opinion. (on page 8)

 

  1. It can be understood that the inclusion of LID elements in the SWMM model helps reduce stormwater runoff. But how are the results helping in the design standards of LID elements? The title suggests “calculating appropriate design standards for LID facilities”. However, no such conclusion has been provided.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. The application method of the A-I-R curve in the design was written in the conclusion. (on page 12)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Only a minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

Thank you for the reviewer's comments. I have written responses to reviewer comments and revised paper pages. The reviewer's corrections are marked in red. Duplicate opinions are marked in Purple.  Again, thanks for the comments, we made the corrections with the utmost care.

comments

  1. 1. Kindly check the whole manuscript to rectify any typo mistakes. For example “Sesign” in title, I think should be changed to “Design”.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 1)

 

  1. Before using any abbreviation kindly define it where it appears first time. Like in Abstract line 15 and 17, “A-I-R” and “SWMM” have been used without prior definitions. In “Material and Methods” line 83, 84, again “SWMM” is used without defining it. On line 85, “W.R.E.” is also used without defining it.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 1,3)

 

  1. Materials and Methods, Line 102, in the statement “(a) Bio-Retention Cell retains, infiltrates, and transpires rainfall and runoff water through vegetation and soil mixing” -----“transpires rainfall” needs to be re-phrased.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 3)

 

  1. Introduction, line 58 to 62, in the stamen, Furthermore, as LID facilities were applied to Storm Water Management Model, verification and correction of the LID facility using modeling and validation of the effectiveness of the facility's reduction effect were studied [5, 21-23]. We analyzed the watershed-level reduction effect following the installation of LID facility in the Brooklyn area of New York, USA. The word “We” is not clear.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (whole page)

 

  1. It is suggested that the area ratio (A) may be denoted by RA throughout the manuscript.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 3)

 

  1. Kindly explain, how runoff reduction rate has been estimated. Is it the percent difference in runoff without LID facility and that of with LID facility? If it is so, then was the runoff measured before providing the LID facilities?

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 3)

 

  1. Kindly provide the values of the parameters (impervious-related factors, infiltration, width of overland flow path, and Manning's n) provided initially and those obtained after calibration.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 6)

 

  1. Kindly describe the units used in Figure 3a&b. What does “cms” stands for?

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 7)

 

  1. In title of Figure 3 “Calibration results of the observed and the simulated runoff flows for rainfall events” kindly delete either flows or runoff.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 7)

 

  1. Table 2, ----kindly write “LID facility catchment area (m2) and LID facility surface area (m2) and delete the column for units.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 5-6)

 

  1. Table 5, -----kindly write % and mm/h in first column as follows.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 8)

 

  1. Line 195 to 197, kindly explain the difference between inflow, outflow and runoff.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 7)

 

  1. Line 277, “One study aimed to verify the outflow reduction effect by installing and monitoring LID facility [3, 5, 16, 18, 21-22]” Are these 6 studies or one study, please clarify.

â–º There are 6 references, written according to the paper format.

 

  1. Kindly add some most recent research publications 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023 to strengthen the literature review. I have seen some latest publications in this area of specialization.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 11)

 

  1. Kindly add some most recent research publications 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023 to strengthen the literature review. I have seen some latest publications in this area of specialization.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 2)

 

  1. Kindly modify the title of the manuscript. The study deals with impact assessment. “Design Standards” are slightly different than impact assessment.

â–º Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 1)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop