Numerical Simulation of Nonlinear Wave Propagation from Deep to Shallow Water
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors considered the nonlinear wave propagation from deep water to swash zone by Boussinesq wave model. In short, the problem considered is important and the manuscript is clearly written. I am in favor of its publication in Journal of Marine Science and Engineering if the following issue could be addressed.
1. For case B2 show in figure 3c and figure 4e and 4f, there is a discrepancy between the theoretical and numerical solutions. This discrepancy can not indicate that “the present numerical model can effectively simulate the bichromatic wave propagation in waters of uniform water depth”. The authors are suggested to explain this.
2. For both cases I and II shown in figure 6 and figure 7, the discrepancy between the experimental and numerical solutions is remarkable after the location x=15.7. Why the numerical solutions do not agree with the experimental ones after this location? Why this discrepancy happens for both case I and II?
Author Response
See attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper developed a numerical model for wave propagation from deep water to nearshore, and the results are compared to theories and experiments. The work seems interesting, however, there are questions needed to be clarified.
1. The governing equations are derived by Li more than 12 years ago, are there any other numerical models developed based these equations? If so, they should be referred; otherwise, I will suspect these equations are suitable to describe waves transformation.
2. As the governing equations contain terms with wavenumber k, which should be assigned the exact value, this parameter can be easily calculated for regular waves. I wonder how to assign the value for irregular waves or solitary waves. Larger error must appear for unreason assigned value for k. this may restrict the application of the model.
3. The innovation is not clarified, the friction and breaking terms are just used the methods from previous authors, these sections can be simplified.
Author Response
See attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
see attached report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
See attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In my opinion, the manuscript entitled “Numerical simulation of nonlinear wave propagation from deep water to swash zone” should be rejected as there are many problematic issues. The most serious are:
· The title is too ambitious. The numerical method is hardly a simulation as it is one-dimensional and realistic applications of wave propagation from deep water to the swash zone are not presented.
· The novelty of the manuscript is based on the modifications presented in sections 2.3 and 2.4. These parts need to be better explained and the algorithm better described. In section 2.4, it is mentioned that the conservative variables are H and M, while in section 3.1, it is mentioned that the conservative variables are H and V. The computation of ua, to be used in the computation of M1, M2, M3, is not explained, etc.
· Lines 250-251. This explanation is confusing given that the error of the numerical solution in the comparison to the analytical one in Fig 3c is significant.
· The results of the proposed method are not very accurate in the examples of Figs 6 and 7. Are these results grid independent? Is there any other source of error? What is the effect on these results of the values of the parameters/models of the method?
· The example in section 5.2 is by no means a typical coastal beach. The slope is too steep and there is no real swash zone as the title of the manuscript claims. In the literature, there are several examples of wave propagation and breaking, wave dissipation in the surf zone, and wave setup/runup in the swash zone to compare to.
The English is in general OK. Minor editing is required. See, for example, lines 14, 31,
Author Response
See attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
all my comments or questions have been responded, however, these states are not included in the revised manuscript. so the manuscript can be accepted with these explanations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In my opinion, the manuscript entitled “Numerical simulation of nonlinear wave propagation from deep water to swash zone” should be rejected as the authors did not address satisfactorily any of the most serious ones I raised in my original review:
1. The title is too ambitious. The numerical method is hardly a simulation as it is one-dimensional and realistic applications of wave propagation from deep water to the swash zone are not presented.
The authors’ reply does not address my comment. An appropriate title would be: One-dimensional mathematical model of nonlinear wave propagation in deep and finite-depth water.
2. The novelty of the manuscript is based on the modifications presented in sections 2.3 and 2.4. These parts need to be better explained and the algorithm better described. In section 2.4, it is mentioned that the conservative variables are H and M, while in section 3.1, it is mentioned that the conservative variables are H and V. The computation of ua, to be used in the computation of M1, M2, M3, is not explained, etc.
The authors’ reply does not address my comment. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 were not expanded. Also, in the reply they wrote that one has to solve Eq. (18) to get ua, which is in contradiction with the method novelty not to solve Eqs (1) and (18) but (25) and (26).
3. Lines 250-251. This explanation is confusing given that the error of the numerical solution in the comparison to the analytical one in Fig 3c is significant.
The authors’ reply does not address my comment. If the theoretical model is not good, then they should find something (numerical or experimental) more accurate to convince the reader that their method works.
4. The results of the proposed method are not very accurate in the examples of Figs 6 and 7. Are these results grid independent? Is there any other source of error? What is the effect on these results of the values of the parameters/models of the method?
The authors’ reply does not address my comment. If the theoretical model is not good, then they should find something (numerical or experimental) more accurate to convince the reader that their method works.
5. The example in section 5.2 is by no means a typical coastal beach. The slope is too steep and there is no real swash zone as the title of the manuscript claims. In the literature, there are several examples of wave propagation and breaking, wave dissipation in the surf zone, and wave setup/runup in the swash zone to compare to.
The authors’ reply does not address my comment. I would expect to see an example with a milder beach slope; see for example: Ting, F.C., Kirby, J.T., 1994. Observation of undertow and turbulence in a laboratory surf zone. Coast Eng. 24, 51–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3839(94)90026-4
The English is in general OK. Minor editing is required. See, for example, lines 14, 31, The terms "spatial derivations" and "molding of topographical features" are strange.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
