A Unified View of Nonlinear Resistance Formulas for Seepage Flow in Coarse Granular Media
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The length of paper
- The authors’ paper seems to be too long as an original paper in this journal. The reviewer thinks that the length of paper is more like a review paper instead of an original paper. Except for this, the reviewer does not have any other comments because the texts have in-depth discussion on the Darcy’s law for the flow in a porous media.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript is presenting a detailed review of the different relationships between hydraulic gradient and seepage velocity developed by different authors over the years. The different conceptual approaches and resulting resistance formulae are described. A distinction of the latter is made based on whether they are expressed in terms of the representative diameter of the particles, the intrinsic permeability, the hydraulic mean radius or the physical parameters of the Forchheimer Equation. An analysis of the relationship between parameters of the different formulae of resistance is presented and a unified general seepage equation applicable to large-sized granular materials is derived.
The paper has a clear structure and it is very well-written. It also fits the field of interest of the specific journal. In addition, the results are clearly presented.
However, the paper is extremely long and contains a lot of details that are of limited interest for the reader. In addition, the originality of the research and its scientific impact are rather limited. An exhaustive literature review on the various proposed formulae is included. Although a unified general resistance formula is proposed based on experimental data and earlier derived equations, this manuscript is mostly a review, rather than an original research paper. In my opinion, in its present form it would be a perfect chapter in a PhD dissertation but requires some modifications to be a research paper.
I am not suggesting that it is of no scientific interest for the reader but I would advice the authors to firstly shorten the manuscript, while making it more concise and comprehensive. They should also try to further pronounce their original contribution to the discussed subject. After these modifications the paper can be considered for publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the efforts made by the authors to address my comments. In my opinion, the objectives of the paper are more clear now and my concerns have been largely overcome. I can now recommend the paper for publication.
