Next Article in Journal
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Simulations of Water Flow in a 90° Pipe Bend
Next Article in Special Issue
Note on the Application of Transient Wave Packets for Wave–Ice Interaction Experiments
Previous Article in Journal
Numerical Study of Three-Dimensional Surface Jets Emerging from a Fishway Entrance Slot
Previous Article in Special Issue
Wave Interaction and Overwash with a Flexible Plate by Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Laboratory Investigations of the Bending Rheology of Floating Saline Ice and Physical Mechanisms of Wave Damping in the HSVA Hamburg Ship Model Basin Ice Tank

Water 2021, 13(8), 1080; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081080
by Aleksey Marchenko 1,*, Andrea Haase 2, Atle Jensen 3, Ben Lishman 4, Jean Rabault 3, Karl-Ulrich Evers 5, Mark Shortt 6 and Torsten Thiel 7
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(8), 1080; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081080
Submission received: 13 March 2021 / Revised: 8 April 2021 / Accepted: 8 April 2021 / Published: 14 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Occurrence, Physics and Impact of Wave–Ice Interaction)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written. Study objective, method, results and discussion are clearly presented. I recommend the manuscript for publication after addressing the minor comments below. • Scaling issue: Wave is in the order of mm and in reality, wave is in the order of meters. However, the periods selected in the experiment design is comparable to swells in the real world. • Section 5: what is the moving speed of ice sheet in the experiments? Again, is that scaled properly? • Too many figures. Suggest removing some that may not be critical (e.g. Fig.5, Fig.16, Fig. 27?), and combining some (e.g. Fig 18-21) to improve readability. • Line870: greater than then wavelength.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments. New version of the paper includes changes according to all comments.

Details are explained below after the review.

Review 1.

The manuscript is well written. Study objective, method, results and discussion are clearly presented. I recommend the manuscript for publication after addressing the minor comments below. • Scaling issue: Wave is in the order of mm and in reality, wave is in the order of meters. However, the periods selected in the experiment design is comparable to swells in the real world. • Section 5: what is the moving speed of ice sheet in the experiments? Again, is that scaled properly? • Too many figures. Suggest removing some that may not be critical (e.g. Fig.5, Fig.16, Fig. 27?), and combining some (e.g. Fig 18-21) to improve readability. • Line870: greater than then wavelength.

Corrections:

  • Scaling is discussed in the end of Section 2 “Organizing of experiments” (lines 304-327). New Figure 5 was added to illustrate the scaling.
  • In section 4. Results of experiments with moving ice it is written: Periods of the cyclic motion of the ice sheet varied between 40 s and 60 s, and maximal velocity of the ice sheet varied between 0.5 m/s and 1 m/s in each cycle.
  • Old Figure 5 is removed from the text.
  • Figures 19a and 19b are grouped in one Figure 19. Figures 20a and 20b are grouped in one Figure 20. Figures 21a and 21b are grouped in one Figure 21.
  • Done

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled ‘Laboratory investigations of the bending rheology of floating saline ice and physical mechanisms of wave damping in the HSVA ice tank’ falls within the scope of the journal Water.

In this manuscript, the results of experiments on the propagation of flexural-gravity waves was performed in the HSVA ice tank are presented. The authors showed that cyclic motion of the ice along the tank, imitating ice drift, and generation of under ice turbulence cause an increase of wave damping. Recorded acoustic emissions demonstrated cyclic microcracking occurring with wave frequencies and accompanying bending deformations of the ice. It explains viscous and anelastic rheology of the model ice.

The paper contains very interesting experimental results as well as corresponding analyses. It is of sufficient scientific interest and has originality in its technical content to merit publication. The authors have cited the relevant literature. Methods, interpretations of results are correct. The authors presented extensive material supporting the conducted research. The issues were well presented. In terms of content, the analysis does not raise any objections. The arrangement of work maintains substantive continuity and constitutes a logical whole. The conclusions are supported by the results of the research. The conclusions are correct, new and they are supported by the results of the research.

However, the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form. This paper requires minor corrections.

Conclusions should be presented in a separate chapter.

Moreover, conclusions should be bulleted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments. New version of the paper includes changes according to all comments.

Details are explained below after the reviews.

The manuscript entitled ‘Laboratory investigations of the bending rheology of floating saline ice and physical mechanisms of wave damping in the HSVA ice tank’ falls within the scope of the journal Water.

In this manuscript, the results of experiments on the propagation of flexural-gravity waves was performed in the HSVA ice tank are presented. The authors showed that cyclic motion of the ice along the tank, imitating ice drift, and generation of under ice turbulence cause an increase of wave damping. Recorded acoustic emissions demonstrated cyclic microcracking occurring with wave frequencies and accompanying bending deformations of the ice. It explains viscous and anelastic rheology of the model ice.

The paper contains very interesting experimental results as well as corresponding analyses. It is of sufficient scientific interest and has originality in its technical content to merit publication. The authors have cited the relevant literature. Methods, interpretations of results are correct. The authors presented extensive material supporting the conducted research. The issues were well presented. In terms of content, the analysis does not raise any objections. The arrangement of work maintains substantive continuity and constitutes a logical whole. The conclusions are supported by the results of the research. The conclusions are correct, new and they are supported by the results of the research.

However, the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form. This paper requires minor corrections.

Conclusions should be presented in a separate chapter.

Moreover, conclusions should be bulleted.

Corrections:

Section 6 is changed to Discussions. Main conclusions are listed in Section 7.

Back to TopTop