Experimental Data of Bottom Pressure and Free Surface Elevation including Wave and Current Interactions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors provide interesting measurement data. These data can be used by other teams of researchers, inter alia, to validate the modeling of similar measurement problems. The main advantage of the work is the available data sets. The article itself is written correctly and provides a lot of necessary information about the experiment. However, the authors almost completely ignored the measurement uncertainty issues. Physical quantities without specifying their uncertainty have a limited value. This is especially important in experimental work. The work should be supplemented with all the detailed parameters of the experiments along with the specification of the uncertainty and methods of its determination.
Author Response
A document with the response to all three reviewers is attached. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This work presents a set of experimental measures collected at FloWave Ocean Energy Research Facility from an array of wave gauges, an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) and a bottom mounted force plate. These data include the free surface and water velocity above the submerged force plate for a series of tests involving wave, current, and combined wave-current conditions. Also, induced force on the submerged plate for any test condition is measured.
The work is interesting mainly because it provides a database to: quantify the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces acting on the plate; removal of force plate-based loads to estimate the structural forces on the foundation for a specific experiment.
My field of expertise is computational fluid dynamics; therefore, the comments and suggestions that follow mainly pertain to such field.
Literature review seems suitable. Anyway, at the lines 25-26, amongst the complex systems should be included Offshore Wind Turbines [1].
The research design seems appropriate and the investigation methods are clearly described (however, I cannot find the location of the ADV on Fig. 2).
English spelling must be checked. See for instance: line 68 “The data presented in this paper represents; line 112 “wave kinematics are”, line 214 “of for the underwater” etc.).
The results description might be improved in order to explain the causes of some peculiar behaviours that deviate from theoretical expectations. In particular:
i – Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 upper panels: it seems that the actual wave amplitude overestimates the target (i.e., requested) value of 0.03 m. Please, explain the possible cause of such a discrepancy.
ii – Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 central panels: the force signal shows high frequency components with significant amplitude, even before the arrival of the generated wave (i.e, t<5sec). It is hard for me to understand the reason of such a disturbance. Please, comment on this.
iii – Fig. 5 lower panel: y component of the measured velocity shows relatively large high frequency fluctuations (if compared to the x velocity component); according to the schematic in Fig. 1b (top view) one should expect almost zero values for y velocity component along the symmetry midline of the wave thank. Please explain and discuss.
Careful rereading is suggested to avoid typos.
References to be added
[1] Petrini F.,Manenti S.,Gkoumas K.,Bontempi F. Structural design and analysis of offshore wind turbines from a system point of view. Wind Engineering 34:1, Pages 85 – 108 (2010) 10.1260/0309-524X.34.1.85
[2] Junwei Liu, Zhipeng Wan, Xingke Dai, Dongsheng Jeng andYanping Zhao "Experimental Study on Whole Wind Power Structure with Innovative Open-Ended Pile Foundation under Long-Term Horizontal Loading". Sensors 2020, 20(18), 5348; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20185348
Author Response
A document with the response to all three reviewers is attached. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents the results of experimental measurements relating to flows at different speeds in the presence of sediments as well. The experimental facilities have been well described so that other scholars can reproduce the results. The resulting dataset can also be usefully considered as a reference for the testing of algorithms for the prediction of the pressure distribution based on the elevation of the free surface. Consequently, the data measured in this article could be added to other databases to be considered also for the validation of CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) models related to sediment transport and bottom fluvial erosion.
For example, among many others:
Pasculli A. (2018) – Viscosity Variability Impact on 2D Laminar and Turbulent Poiseuille Velocity Profiles; Characteristic-Based Split (CBS) Stabilization – 2018 5th International Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sciences and Industry (MCSI). doi:10.1109/MCSI.2018.00038.
Another useful article would be:
M.W. Schmeeckle & J.M. Nelson (2003) – Direct numerical simulation of bedload transport using a local, dynamic boundary condition – Sedimentology, 50, pp. 279-301.
Therefore, with the addition of the last previous considerations, the article would be ready for publication.
Author Response
A document with the response to all three reviewers is attached. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the Authors for improving the manuscript following my recommendations.
In my opinion, the revised version of the manuscript can be considered for publication in the Journal.
