Inundation Characteristics of Solitary Waves According to Revetment Type
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The manuscript conducted an experiment and a numerical analysis. Wave overtopping and inundation were studied through wave fields, flow fields, and vortex fields. The results of the manuscript contribute to the understanding of overtopping and inundation mechanisms.
1. The Introduction part has details expressing the damage of the tsunami, which included shockwaves, runup, overtopping, and inundation. However, from the framework of the whole manuscript, the description of coral reefs from line 72 to 89 may not be necessary. Thus, I suggest this part can be simplified into several sentences.
2. In Figure 5, the manuscript has clearly shown that from WG4 to WG5, the maximum water surface elevation decreased. However, from WG3 to WG4, the phenomenon is different. With the increase of ?, the maximum water surface elevation first increases and then decreases. The manuscript does not explain the main reason. Meanwhile, from Figure 3, the time-domain waveform of these experimental conditions has a clear phenomenon that the maximum water surface elevation increase with ?. In my view, the reasons should be clearly explained the connection between Figures 3 and 5.
3. In Figure 10 (a), we can find a clear vibration of the calculated results which do not exist in the experiment, and also in Figure 11(a). Meantime, I do not think the calculated have a good reproduction of WG3, WG4, and WG5 in the experiments. The calculated have reproduced the results of Run-4, but perform not well in Run-11. The maximum value of the calculated value is much larger than the experiment.
4. In Figure 25, the manuscript has shown a good result of the inundation distance due to ?. How about comparing the formula with the former study? Other experimental work or numerical inundation distance.
5. Several minor comments
Line 197. The citation of Lee et al. is wrong. Please check the sequence of all citations.
Line 281. ‘Equation 17 ’ can not be found in the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
The authors appreciate you and the reviewers for their professional and valuable comments on our submitted manuscript, water-2009034. We believe these insightful comments and responses to the comments have improved the quality of our paper. Please find a detailed list of revisions, our replies to the reviewer’s comments, and the revised manuscript titled “Inundation Characteristics of Solitary Waves According to Revetment Type.” I hope the revision satisfies your requirements as well as the reviewers’. Please note that comments are in italics and our responses are in boldface. In addition, the changes in the text are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of our manuscript; please do not hesitate to contact us by e-mail or phone should there be any questions or problems.
Sincerely,
Taeyoon Kim
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
The authors appreciate you and the reviewers for their professional and valuable comments on our submitted manuscript, water-2009034. We believe these insightful comments and responses to the comments have improved the quality of our paper. Please find a detailed list of revisions, our replies to the reviewer’s comments, and the revised manuscript titled “Inundation Characteristics of Solitary Waves According to Revetment Type.” I hope the revision satisfies your requirements as well as the reviewers’. Please note that comments are in italics and our responses are in boldface. In addition, the changes in the text are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of our manuscript; please do not hesitate to contact us by e-mail or phone should there be any questions or problems.
Sincerely,
Taeyoon Kim
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript is addressing pressing climate resilience matters and is aligned with the overall journal's aim and scope. I read the manuscript with interest. However, there is a need for major revision following the point-by-point comments below.
Overall comments:
The language of the paper is not always appropriate. On many occasions, you did not use common and appropriate terminologies. You should proofread the manuscript, I think native speakers or professional proofreaders are needed to address the language concerns of the manuscript.
The manuscript follows a good structure and the figures and tables are mostly of very good quality. I suggest re-structuring the conclusions to blend the numbered conclusions (No. 1-5) in the text.
abstract: this section contains relevant info and mostly follows the usual protocols. L13: what do you mean by 'the control mechanism'?
L15: 'hydraulic model experiments ...' - this should read 'physical modelling tests' - this is an example of what I meant by the use of inappropriate language.
L25 what do you mean by 'inundation distance' - is this the 'spatial distribution of hazard zone'?
why your abstract doesn't mention anything about the numerical model developed in the study? I think this is a significant part of the work and should be mentioned in the abstract. Also, what is the key new information of this paper? I think this is not highlighted in the abstract?
Keywords: add keywords related to your numerical model.
Introduction: the structure of discussions presented in the intro section needs a revisit and a bit more concise approach in presenting the background information. You may want to use different subheadings (e.g. 1.1 and 1.2) to present the physical and numerical modeling work in the literature. The authors took a very limited approach in reviewing overtopping work and not mentioning recent advancements in quantifications of mean, (doi.org/10.9753/icce.v36v.structures.13) wave-by-wave (doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20464-5; doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2020.102331) overtopping, wave impact load (doi.org/10.3390/w13202849), and spatial distribution of hazard zone (doi.org/10.9753/icce.v36v.structures.17). Further, you are proposing defenses with multiple uses and with a retrofitting approach which is great, but not mentioning the recent efforts in the adoption of retrofitting for both climatic and ecological enhancement (doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.674630; doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1072/1/012005). When discussing the overtopping related literature, I think you also need to mention design guidelines and the lack of information about tsunami-like waves in the existing design guidelines such as EurOtop (2018) guideline, and this can further justify the need for the research presented in this paper. Similar to the physical modelling literature, you are missing some of the recent numerical literature, for example, you mention some work done by RANS or LES which is good, but missing on the Lagrangian particle-based methods such as Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (doi.org/10.1142/S057856341750005X; doi.org/10.9753/icce.v36.papers.109). Given that in recent years a significant research focus was shifted toward the use of SPH for coastal and ocean engineering problems, it is important to briefly discuss the SPH-related work mentioned.
L119-129: this paragraph is not adding anything to the paper, and I think your sub-headings are self-explanatory and dont require the additional info mentioned here. In the interest of saving readers time, you should delete this section.
2.1 'experimental tank' - I think this can read 'physical modeling facility' ..
Fig 1 and onwards - use of cm as unit is not very common - this is not a deal breaker but if you can easily change the units to meter would be better - only a suggestion.
2.2. Experimental Devices and Measurement Method can read as 'Free surface tracking' - questions here would be why 50hz? and how you conducted wave reflection analysis.
2.3. Incident Wave Conditions - for this section the question is whether your flume conditions meant that wave height at the paddle can be classed as offshore/deep water condition, or if the condition near the paddle is not deep-water?
3.1. Water Surface Elevation Distribution During Wave Overtopping - in this section again the problem which is not discussed is the lack of wave reflection analysis and the indication of what is the interaction between the incident and reflected waves.
for the figures presenting the results, it would be good if you can add dimensions for both the vertical and horizontal axis to give the reader a more readily understanding of the parameters.
For the numerical model, you need to add more detailed descriptions of the governing equations and LES method (doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68830-5). You also need to add further details about how you set up the armor layers mentioned in Fig. 8?
4.3.1 Wave generation conditions - can you discuss the appropriateness of your wave generation model? why do you not use an active absorption paddle? this raises questions about the accuracy and validity of the wave model - you need to discuss this further and justify the choice of wave generator?
The analysis and discussions are fine - I think you can further elaborate on the impacts of the research and how you can translate that in real-life applications.
Conclusions: you need to add more info about the overall research methods and conclusion points 1-5 should be embedded in the text rather than the current numbered format.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
The authors appreciate you and the reviewers for their professional and valuable comments on our submitted manuscript, water-2009034. We believe these insightful comments and responses to the comments have improved the quality of our paper. Please find a detailed list of revisions, our replies to the reviewer’s comments, and the revised manuscript titled “Inundation Characteristics of Solitary Waves According to Revetment Type.” I hope the revision satisfies your requirements as well as the reviewers’. Please note that comments are in italics and our responses are in boldface. In addition, the changes in the text are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of our manuscript; please do not hesitate to contact us by e-mail or phone should there be any questions or problems.
Sincerely,
Taeyoon Kim
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments given. I can confirm that the manuscript has improved. There remain minor revisions before the paper can be published:
I think you can add LES as a keyword.
Abstract need proofreading - e.g. at the front of the vertical wall --> in front of ...
The introduction is largely fine, I think before L107 you can just add a sentence or two to justify the research need/ mention the research gap.
The description of the numerical model and governing equations of LES is improved, and references for LES method development should be provided (doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68830-5).
you mentioned be below the figure in the response letter for reflection analysis - which figures in the revised text is showing this?
I think the results and discussions are improved and no further comments.
Conclusions are fine, but I think you dont highlight the specific contribution and novelty of the study in this section.
Following the revisions mentioned above this manuscript is ready for publication.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
The authors appreciate you and the reviewers for their professional and valuable comments on our submitted manuscript, water-2009034. We believe these insightful comments and responses to the comments have improved the quality of our paper. Please find a detailed list of revisions, our replies to the reviewer’s comments, and the revised manuscript titled “Inundation Characteristics of Solitary Waves According to Revetment Type.” I hope the revision satisfies your requirements as well as the reviewers’. Please note that comments are in italics and our responses are in boldface. In addition, the changes in the text are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of our manuscript; please do not hesitate to contact us by e-mail or phone should there be any questions or problems.
Sincerely,
Taeyoon Kim
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A major revision, by addressing the following comments, is necessary.
1. The last paragraph of the Introduction outlines the organization of the rest paper, which however is inconsistent with the specific sections in the subsequent text. For example, section 3 presents the experimental results but not the numerical analysis.
2. The authors mentioned a calibration process during generating solitary waves. As far as I know, unlike the regular wave, the height attenuation during solitary wave propagation is very limited. So, the measured wave height (A0) at WG0 should be close to the input wave height (A) in Eq. (2). In this case, is the calibration process still necessary? If A0 indeed deviates from A, how to adjust the movement of the wave paddle? By multiplying a coefficient to Eq. (2)?
3. Solitary wave generation is commonly based on the Boussinesq or the Rayleigh assumption. What kind of assumption is adopted in the present experimental and numerical study? According to line 370, it seems that the Boussinesq assumption is adopted herein. Please make this point clearer.
4. Line 236. Should WG1 be WG2? In addition, what is the existential significance of WG1? It is neither used for calibrating the target waves nor used for comparing the water surface elevations regarding VR and WAR.
5. Owing to the statement that "In the NWT, a wave-generating source was installed at the same position as the wave maker in the experimental tank", it is natural to think that the distance between the wave source and the WAR in the NWT is 998+1500+73. Is this distance so long that unnecessary computational burden is introduced?
6. Based on the grid resolution test, a relatively coarse grid resolution is chosen in the most areas while a medium grid resolution is adopted near the structure and the water surface. Then, how to treat the transition between these two grid resolutions?
7. What is the horizontal position of the center of the separated region mentioned in Figures 24 and 25?
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
The authors appreciate you and reviewers for their professional and valuable comments on our submitted manuscript, JMSE-1897550. We believe these thorough comments and responses to the comments have made the paper stronger and more impressive. Please find a detailed list of revisions, our replies to the reviewer’s comments, and the revised manuscript of “Inundation Characteristics of Solitary Waves on Vertical and Wave Absorbing Revetments”, which has been changed. I hope the revision satisfies your requirements as well as reviewers’. Please note that comments are in italics and our responses are in boldface. In addition, the changes in the text are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of our manuscript; please do not hesitate to contact us by e-mail or phone should there be any questions or problems.
Sincerely,
Taeyoon Kim
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript reports the experimental and numerical investigations of solitary wave induced inundation in a vertical revetment and a wave absorbing revetment. This topic is worthy of attention considering the growing need for a suitable coastal protection against the tsunami risk. The proposed research problem is within the scope of the Jounal of Marine Science and Engineering. Although the experiments and numerical simulations carried out are a piece of good work, the structure of the current manuscript is unsatisfactory. Therefore, I recommend a major revision before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. The main comments are as follows:
1. The “revetment type” in the title is somehow misleading. After reading through the whole manuscript, I can understand that the difference of the two reventment lies in two parts: the structure difference (vertical vs sloping) and the permeability difference (wave absorbing vs water proof). However, at the first glance of this title, I would be confused what types are considered. Therefore, I recommend to include the specific revetment structure in the title to better convey the research contents.
2. The introduction part is somehow lengthy. The review of tsunami inundation covers almost all the aspects of inundation. However, as I understand, the problem considered in this research is mainly the run-up process of a solitary wave on a coastal structure. I recommend to remove the contents regarding 3-D experiments and simulations. Also, the paragraph that covers the coral reef is somehow irrelavent and should be removed except for that of Yao et al. 2019 that considers tsunami wave run-up with different morphological settings.
3.The numerical methodology part is also lengthy. If the development of numerical wave tank has been reported in previous publications, the governing equations, solution techniques and boudary conditions can be deleted and the readers can be referred to some citations. If this is not the case, I would recommend to cut it short and focus on the treatment of porous media, which is considered to be the most interested part. As for the generation of solitary waves, it is better to merge 4.1.4 ,4.3 and 4.4 into one section.
4. Where is figure 5(a)? Is the maximum water surface elevation directly read from the ruler in Figure 5? As I can see, the marks on the ruler is not easy to be recognized.
5. In Figure 14 and 15, obvious oscilations in surface elevation is observed at WG2, please explain this phenomenon.It is also worthy of noting that WG2 in the VR test is located right in the front of the vertical wall, but no reflection is observed in the experiment.
6. The conclusion part is badly structured. The authors gave a long list of their main findings. The conslusions drawn are mainly based on the numerical results. If this is the case, the experimental set-up should be cut shorter, especially the procedure of carrying out experiments should be removed. Also, The wave surface analysis can be merged into the analysis of numerical results. In this case, the section 4 which deals with numerical methodology should be replaced right after the experimental set-up is introduced.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
The authors appreciate you and reviewers for their professional and valuable comments on our submitted manuscript, JMSE-1897550. We believe these thorough comments and responses to the comments have made the paper stronger and more impressive. Please find a detailed list of revisions, our replies to the reviewer’s comments, and the revised manuscript of “Inundation Characteristics of Solitary Waves on Vertical and Wave Absorbing Revetments”, which has been changed. I hope the revision satisfies your requirements as well as reviewers’. Please note that comments are in italics and our responses are in boldface. In addition, the changes in the text are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of our manuscript; please do not hesitate to contact us by e-mail or phone should there be any questions or problems.
Sincerely,
Taeyoon Kim
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents experimental and numerical investigations on solitary wave propagation according to two different types of revetment. The topic is interesting and in line with the journal's scope. The two investigations are described in detail however there are some overlaps between this manuscript and a recently published paper by the same group of authors:
Lee, W. D., Choi, S., Kim, T., & Yeom, G. S. (2022). Comparison of solitary wave overtopping characteristics between vertical and wave absorbing revetments. Ocean Engineering, 256, 111542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111542
This published paper (Lee et al. 2022) presents similar research focused on the comparison of solitary wave overtopping between vertical and wave absorbing revetments. The objective is slightly different but the paper structure is the same. In fact, some figures and written parts are identical (see for instance Figures 2 and 3 in the published paper and in the submitted manuscript).
Since the two research are similar, I suggest completely revising the submitted manuscript, deleting all the written parts that could be referenced with the published paper, for instance:
- Paragraph 2.4 (generating solitary waves) could be simplified and referenced to paragraph 2.3 of Lee et al. 2022
- Paragraph 4.1 (Numerical model) and its subparagraph: it is quite identical to paragraph 4.1 of Lee et al. 2022. I suggest writing only a short description and the differences in the configuration/implementation
Basically, all the parts that describe methods (in lab or numerical) should be summarized by referring to the published paper. This complete revision of the submitted manuscript is necessary to differentiate the two papers and to focus the attention only on the novel results that are interesting but lost along the text.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
The authors appreciate you and reviewers for their professional and valuable comments on our submitted manuscript, JMSE-1897550. We believe these thorough comments and responses to the comments have made the paper stronger and more impressive. Please find a detailed list of revisions, our replies to the reviewer’s comments, and the revised manuscript of “Inundation Characteristics of Solitary Waves on Vertical and Wave Absorbing Revetments”, which has been changed. I hope the revision satisfies your requirements as well as reviewers’. Please note that comments are in italics and our responses are in boldface. In addition, the changes in the text are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of our manuscript; please do not hesitate to contact us by e-mail or phone should there be any questions or problems.
Sincerely,
Taeyoon Kim
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed most of my concerns. However, the relaxation layer mentioned in [Response 6] is not reflected in the manuscript, which in my opinion needs to be briefly introduced. A very minor modification is still necessary.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer 1 for careful review of our manuscript and thoughtful comments. We think these thorough comments and responses to the comments have made the paper stronger and more impressive. We have attempted to address your comments below as your comments are in italics and our responses are in boldface.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for the review of JMSE-1897550:
In the manuscript, the author combined a hydraulic experiment and a numerical model to analyze the phenomena of wave overtopping under both vertical and wave absorbing revetments. The methodology and analysis can well explain the results in the manuscript. The previous review is also well replied by the author.
I recommend that this manuscript should be accepted for publication after revision according to the following comments:
1. The same in Review v1. The description of the coral reef in lines 50-53 is irrelevant and is suggested to be removed. Though coral reefs may have some common points with WAR in this manuscript.
2. From the description of the 2.1 experiment tank, the difference between VR and WAR in this manuscript can be found. But the difference is not obvious in Figure.1. For the same wave flume used, the size of figure.1(a) and figure.1(b) are not the same. The two figures should have the same size. Also, the descriptions in the figure should have the same font size.
3. In figure.5, just as the author described in the manuscript, the maximum water surface elevation of WG3 does not show a large difference. In the figure, the maximum water surface elevation of WAR is lightly large than VAR in (a) and (b), while the opposite is shown in (c) under a larger A0. How to explain the phenomenon.
4. Several minor comments:
l Math symbols should be unified in italics, such as lines 137, 140 146. Check them all before publication.
l It seems that Eq.2 and Eq.3 have a different font size. Check them as same as other equations.
l Line 556: ‘see Figs. 15 and 54’. Check the number of figures.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer 2 for careful review of our paper and helpful suggestions. Please see our responses to your comments underneath each point. We believe these thorough comments and responses to the comments have made the paper stronger and more useful. We do truly appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer 2 again. Comments are in italics and our responses are in boldface.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
