Influence of Van Gent Parameters on the Overtopping Discharge of a Rubble Mound Breakwater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript needs a strong improvement in terms of test cases and description for a suitable use for engineering applications. My main concerns are whether the paper merits publication in JMSE in terms of rigour and insight. As such I feel the work is slightly short of that which I would expect to see in JMSE. The paper needs major revision before published.

[Line 1]

van gen-> van gent

[Intro]

Is the van Gent equation the only way to analyze porous media in coastal engineering? Authors should review a variety of literature. Among the various literature values, the reason for applying the van Gent equation should be mentioned.

[Line 63-67]

The friction parameter is one of the important factors affecting the wave overtopping. A further discussion of the inaccurate estimation by friction parameters is required.

[Line 143]

The researchers applied c=0.34. Can you generalize to all studies? What is the mean overtopping discharge result as parameters c and Bchange?

[Line 89]

Various equations have been proposed for estimating the hydraulic gradient for porous media. Is there a reason you considered the van Gent equation? I believe that various research results (e.g. Stephenson 1979; Ergun 1952; McCorquodale et al. 1979; Wilkins 1956) should be reviewed before this study can be published.

[Line 178-186]

The difference in mean overtopping discharge by  B is not surprising. Anyone majoring in coastal engineering knows this. I don't know if there is any creativity or originality in this study. Also, are there any new findings you would like to inform about through this study?

[Manuscript]

Are there any other studies done on parameter tuning? Are you sure?

I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Major revision is suggested. Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Extensive editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The technical note under review deals with a subject that could be of interest to readers but, unfortunately, appears inconclusive. It focuses on the evaluation of Van Gent's coefficient β that controls the overtopping in typical composite breakwaters. The result that the article offers is merely that the said coefficient is rather sensitive to the specific conditions of each case considered. The type of breakwater, whether conventional or composite or else, was not addressed although it plays a significant role on overtopping. More importantly, no recommendation or guideline is given on how to cope with the issue of β value, or at least hints on such values to be used in typical applications similar to the ones examined. In essence, the manuscript looks like being stopped just before its final and most valuable part, that of the discussion of results and conclusions of interest to the reader. Due to the above, I cannot recommend publication under its present form.

Some further comments follow that would be helpful to the authors, if they decide for a major upgrading of their article following the previous main   comments.

1. In Abstract no referencing

2. In Keywords exclude "numerical modelling" and include "overtopping discharge"

3. Define RNG, line 86

4. Fig. 1 suggests that damage to the structure could be soil subsidence rather than "missing blocks" stated in the text.

5. Findings given in Fig. 2 should be discussed.

6. In Fig. 4 check the EurOtop lines in legend.

7. In Fig. 5 do not show this kind of fitting line (it could be an ondulating curve instead)

Language is in good shape in general. However, it needs careful review to fix slips, e.g. modelling (or modeling) everywhere, Forchheimer (!), etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer's request was fully reflected.

Reviewer 2 Report

The present version can be accepted.

 Minor editing of English language is required.

Reviewer 3 Report

Although my main comment was not fully addressed, I can now recommend, marginally though, publication of this Technical Note

Not gone through the text again. I trust the authors have carefully reviewed for language & edits