the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Oct 2023
Control of erosion damage of the hinterland by due to construction of submerged detached breakwater
Abstract. Submerged detached breakwaters (SDBWs) have increasingly been used in recent times as an alternative against their emergent counterpart (EDBWs) to mitigate erosion because the former do not spoil the seascape. Both of these structures are (usually) constructed using precast concrete blocks or natural granite rocks, hence becoming permeable structures. In the case of a single EDBW, a parabolic bay shape equation can be readily used to assess the shoreline planform behind the structure, yet no direct method for the SDBW. In this study, the variation in the initial curved equilibrium planform downdrift of a harbor breakwater, before and after the installation of SDBWs, is estimated by the wave transmission coefficient through an SDBW and calculated longshore sediment transport of which the wave diffraction is considered. This is to say that the shore-normal direction varies (rotates) along a curved equilibrium planform. The applicability of this methodology is validated by comparing the observed data (wave and shoreline change) using closed circuit television on Bongpo-Cheonjin Beach in South Korea, with the calculated shoreline changes. This rational approach, though with some limitations, for shoreline change behind permeable SDBWs will benefit the work on coastal management and mitigation of beach erosion.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(2363 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-166', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Nov 2023
The manuscript authored by Lim et al. examines how much wave energy reduction is provided by the transmission rate of a submerged detached breakwaters (SDBW) and what impact the diffraction process on the static equilibrium planform (SEP) behind the structure and the longshore sediment transport rate (LSTR).
Overall, the manuscript addresses an important topic in coastal engineering. However, there is a need for a more detailed and well-justified explanation of the described method, along with substantial enhancements in terms of document formatting, English language proficiency, sentence cohesion, and overall structural integrity.
General comments are indicated below and more detailed comments are in the attached document:
- The title doesn't quite align with the manuscript's content. It doesn't address erosion damage control but rather presents a methodology for evaluating beach response in the presence of submerged structures.
- The document's structure is disorienting, causing the reader to struggle in discerning the theoretical content from the parts focused on practical application cases.
- It's uncertain whether the model introduced in this study can be easily applied to other study areas.
- The manuscript contains several instances of self-citation and fails to include essential and up-to-date references on the subject matter.
- The manuscript mentions three beaches, seemingly earmarked for analysis at various stages (Bongpo-Cheonjin Beach, Yeongrang Beach, and Maengbang Beach). However, the text only provides the location of Bongpo-Cheonjin Beach, leaving the purpose of the analyses on the other beaches unclear. If all three beaches are to undergo analysis, they should be depicted on a location map with a comprehensive representation of their distinctive characteristics, including the wave data points used for the analysis.
- There are figures incorporated without a clear explanation of their intended use.
- The location maps need enhancements in formatting, including always the inclusion of coordinate grids, a scale, a legend, and a geographic north indicator. Moreover, maintain consistent orientation when depicting the same beach in different figures.
- The description of the study area needs to be more comprehensive, including information such as the tidal range, seasonal variations in wave conditions, and detailed insights into its morphological attributes, such as average sediment size, typical beach orientation, and so on.
- The discussion is notably brief, primarily centered on the limitations of the proposal. It should deliver a comprehensive discussion encompassing not only its limitations but also its advantages in relation to the current state of knowledge. Furthermore, it should place the proposal in the context of its applicability. It would be valuable to consider and comment on the possible significance of factors such as the location, size, depth, and proximity to the shore of submerged structures. Moreover, the discussion should explore the proposal's adaptability to beaches with different sediment sizes and the impact of tidal range.
- The conclusions lack clarity and fail to emphasize the practical utility and performance of the model proposed in the manuscript.
Based on the points mentioned above, it is deemed necessary to undertake substantial revisions to the manuscript to make it suitable for publication.
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-166', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Nov 2023
This manuscript is investigating the impact of the submerged detached breakwater on the shoreline stability and erosion mitigation of a bay beach. The study examines the influence of the transmitted energy as well as the wave diffraction process on the static equilibrium planform (SEP) of an embayed prototype beach case in South Korea.
Generally, the manuscript is addressing an important research topic of coastal engineering. However, it is presenting a methodology that is based on only one beach. Moreover, the wave data employed for such study is not large enough for the long-term equilibrium of embayed beaches.
Some general comments are listed below:
- The manuscript title is not representing the content of the research study. The title states a control of erosion of the bay beach, however the manuscript content presents and evaluates a methodology of the beach response to the construction of submerged breakwaters.
- The manuscript is not well structured causing confusion to the reader. Moreover, some parts of the paper are hard to read.
- The manuscript topic is more suitable for engineering journals (e.g. coastal engineering, coastal research, etc.) rather than Natural Hazards.
- The literature review of the manuscript is not complete. It is not covering the recent research work found in the state-of-the-art for the selected topic. Furthermore, the manuscript is making use of self-citations a lot, rather than citing most updated articles in the research field.
- It is not obvious if the methodology adopted in the current study could be applied to other prototype beach cases. A methodology cannot be established only based on a single bay beach case.
- The description of the study area is quite brief and needs more detailed information about the beach characteristics and the location of the employed wave data.
- Some figures needs more clarifications regarding their intended usage.
- Obviously, the paper requires a linguistic revision of the English use as well as the punctuation throughout the manuscript.
- The discussion and conclusion sections are notably brief. Thus, they require more explanations of the beach response to the submerged structures and their configuration effect on the transmitted energy and thus the equilibrium shoreline.
- The study clearly neglects the impact of important factor that affect the wave transmission at submerged breakwaters such as the crest width, the tidal range and consequently the variation of the submerged depth over the structure crest.
Taking into account the abovementioned comments, the manuscript is not suitable for publication with its current form that is lacking a comprehensive analysis and discussion of the proposed methodology that has been derived only based on a single case study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-166-RC2 -
EC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-166', Mauricio Gonzalez, 28 Nov 2023
Dear authors,
With respect to the review of this work, the revised submission does not appeal at all to the reviewers, who both have long experiences and strong familiarity with the subject matter. According to the comments of the two reviewers, both have rejected the paper, because they consider that it does not represent a substantial contribution to the understanding of natural hazards, they consider that it is a work that analyzes a very local problem that cannot be extended to other environments, that does not include relevant variables that have not been included in the analysis. Finally, they consider that it is an article more oriented to a coastal engineering journal than a natural hazards journal such as NHESS.
Therefore, following the comments and shortcomings highlighted by the reviewers, I consider this article unpublishable in NHESS. I recommend to the authors taking into account the reviewers' comments in the manuscript and submitting the paper to a more engineering-oriented journal.
I would kindly ask to withdraw the paper.
Best regards,
Mauricio
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-166-EC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-166', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Nov 2023
The manuscript authored by Lim et al. examines how much wave energy reduction is provided by the transmission rate of a submerged detached breakwaters (SDBW) and what impact the diffraction process on the static equilibrium planform (SEP) behind the structure and the longshore sediment transport rate (LSTR).
Overall, the manuscript addresses an important topic in coastal engineering. However, there is a need for a more detailed and well-justified explanation of the described method, along with substantial enhancements in terms of document formatting, English language proficiency, sentence cohesion, and overall structural integrity.
General comments are indicated below and more detailed comments are in the attached document:
- The title doesn't quite align with the manuscript's content. It doesn't address erosion damage control but rather presents a methodology for evaluating beach response in the presence of submerged structures.
- The document's structure is disorienting, causing the reader to struggle in discerning the theoretical content from the parts focused on practical application cases.
- It's uncertain whether the model introduced in this study can be easily applied to other study areas.
- The manuscript contains several instances of self-citation and fails to include essential and up-to-date references on the subject matter.
- The manuscript mentions three beaches, seemingly earmarked for analysis at various stages (Bongpo-Cheonjin Beach, Yeongrang Beach, and Maengbang Beach). However, the text only provides the location of Bongpo-Cheonjin Beach, leaving the purpose of the analyses on the other beaches unclear. If all three beaches are to undergo analysis, they should be depicted on a location map with a comprehensive representation of their distinctive characteristics, including the wave data points used for the analysis.
- There are figures incorporated without a clear explanation of their intended use.
- The location maps need enhancements in formatting, including always the inclusion of coordinate grids, a scale, a legend, and a geographic north indicator. Moreover, maintain consistent orientation when depicting the same beach in different figures.
- The description of the study area needs to be more comprehensive, including information such as the tidal range, seasonal variations in wave conditions, and detailed insights into its morphological attributes, such as average sediment size, typical beach orientation, and so on.
- The discussion is notably brief, primarily centered on the limitations of the proposal. It should deliver a comprehensive discussion encompassing not only its limitations but also its advantages in relation to the current state of knowledge. Furthermore, it should place the proposal in the context of its applicability. It would be valuable to consider and comment on the possible significance of factors such as the location, size, depth, and proximity to the shore of submerged structures. Moreover, the discussion should explore the proposal's adaptability to beaches with different sediment sizes and the impact of tidal range.
- The conclusions lack clarity and fail to emphasize the practical utility and performance of the model proposed in the manuscript.
Based on the points mentioned above, it is deemed necessary to undertake substantial revisions to the manuscript to make it suitable for publication.
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-166', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Nov 2023
This manuscript is investigating the impact of the submerged detached breakwater on the shoreline stability and erosion mitigation of a bay beach. The study examines the influence of the transmitted energy as well as the wave diffraction process on the static equilibrium planform (SEP) of an embayed prototype beach case in South Korea.
Generally, the manuscript is addressing an important research topic of coastal engineering. However, it is presenting a methodology that is based on only one beach. Moreover, the wave data employed for such study is not large enough for the long-term equilibrium of embayed beaches.
Some general comments are listed below:
- The manuscript title is not representing the content of the research study. The title states a control of erosion of the bay beach, however the manuscript content presents and evaluates a methodology of the beach response to the construction of submerged breakwaters.
- The manuscript is not well structured causing confusion to the reader. Moreover, some parts of the paper are hard to read.
- The manuscript topic is more suitable for engineering journals (e.g. coastal engineering, coastal research, etc.) rather than Natural Hazards.
- The literature review of the manuscript is not complete. It is not covering the recent research work found in the state-of-the-art for the selected topic. Furthermore, the manuscript is making use of self-citations a lot, rather than citing most updated articles in the research field.
- It is not obvious if the methodology adopted in the current study could be applied to other prototype beach cases. A methodology cannot be established only based on a single bay beach case.
- The description of the study area is quite brief and needs more detailed information about the beach characteristics and the location of the employed wave data.
- Some figures needs more clarifications regarding their intended usage.
- Obviously, the paper requires a linguistic revision of the English use as well as the punctuation throughout the manuscript.
- The discussion and conclusion sections are notably brief. Thus, they require more explanations of the beach response to the submerged structures and their configuration effect on the transmitted energy and thus the equilibrium shoreline.
- The study clearly neglects the impact of important factor that affect the wave transmission at submerged breakwaters such as the crest width, the tidal range and consequently the variation of the submerged depth over the structure crest.
Taking into account the abovementioned comments, the manuscript is not suitable for publication with its current form that is lacking a comprehensive analysis and discussion of the proposed methodology that has been derived only based on a single case study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-166-RC2 -
EC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-166', Mauricio Gonzalez, 28 Nov 2023
Dear authors,
With respect to the review of this work, the revised submission does not appeal at all to the reviewers, who both have long experiences and strong familiarity with the subject matter. According to the comments of the two reviewers, both have rejected the paper, because they consider that it does not represent a substantial contribution to the understanding of natural hazards, they consider that it is a work that analyzes a very local problem that cannot be extended to other environments, that does not include relevant variables that have not been included in the analysis. Finally, they consider that it is an article more oriented to a coastal engineering journal than a natural hazards journal such as NHESS.
Therefore, following the comments and shortcomings highlighted by the reviewers, I consider this article unpublishable in NHESS. I recommend to the authors taking into account the reviewers' comments in the manuscript and submitting the paper to a more engineering-oriented journal.
I would kindly ask to withdraw the paper.
Best regards,
Mauricio
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-166-EC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 271 | 56 | 15 | 342 | 5 | 9 |
- HTML: 271
- PDF: 56
- XML: 15
- Total: 342
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1