Passive Seismic Surveys for Beach Thickness Evaluation at Different England (UK) Sites
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study evaluates passive seismic surveys as a method to determine beach thickness across geologically different (i.e., bedrock geology, substrate lithology/sedimentology, and morphology) beach locations along the UK coastline. The detailed methodology and nuances for successful deployment and interpretation of the beach substrate thickness will help inform future studies interested in similar assessments. Paper is well-written and clearly presented. Recommend accepting in present format (after update to minor errors noted below).
Minor edits required:
Lines 250-253; 273; 325 have “error” message relating to missing reference
Table 2 – “average thickness” needs a space in the column header
Lines 325-326: “elevation” separated on two lines…not sure if this is just a typeset error
Author Response
We thank Reviewer#1 for the summary and review of this manuscript. Please see below how we have addressed each one of your suggestions in the revised manuscript.
Minor edits required:
Lines 250-253; 273; 325 have “error” message relating to missing reference. >> amended as suggested
Table 2 – “average thickness” needs a space in the column header. >> amended as suggested
Lines 325-326: “elevation” separated on two lines…not sure if this is just a typeset error. >> this error is not apparent in authors’ version of the manuscript. The authors will amend if it appears in the final draft.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank Reviewer#1 for the careful and detailed review of this manuscript. Please see below how we have addressed each one of your suggestions in the revised manuscript.
Major comments:
1) One of my main concern is about Figures from 5 to 10. All these figures are basically screenshots of a predefined program. I understand that this is the output of the software and it is the easiest way to obtain these plots, but in my opinion are not suitable for a paper. I am quite sure that the output is an ASCII file, so I would suggest to plot them either with EXCEL, or GMT or whatever program you are able to use and make them nicer, with larger text of the axis label and a clearer key in the legend. I think that this effort would be worth in order to improve the manuscript.
>> Amended with enlarged plot area and clearer labelling of axes.
2) Another major comment is about the conclusions. It seems to me weak. I understand that this is a feasibility study of the application of this technique, but the conclusion does not include a recap of most of the results the authors achieved, the comparison with other techniques, how this technique can be important in the next years. As for lines 72-79, in which the aim of the paper is no completely clear (why choosing this technique? which can be the advantages in control the beaches thickness?), here is not completely clear how this technique works and how it can be helpful. I suggest to put some efforts in improving the conclusion. >> Introduction section and Figure 1 has been reviewed to provide a clearer context and description of the aims of this study. Conclusion extended, including a better context and future directions.
Minor comments:
Line 50: Personal opinion, I don’t like “refers to” to explain the instrumentation. If you agree, please change it with a most appropriate synonym such as “consists of”. >> amended as suggested.
Lines 71-72: I would suggest to rewrite this “To that end, this paper evaluates the feasibility” as, for example “To that end, the aim of this paper is to evaluate the feasibility”. >> amended as suggested.
Lines 71-79: In my opinion, this paragraph should be rewritten. Usually this part should show the aim of the paper, the novelty of the technique, what do you expect to achieve. Rather, here I read the structure of the paper, but is not useful. I would suggest either to remove from line 75 to 79, or to rephrase it to give to the reader the motivation to go further to the next sections. >> Lines 75 to 79 removed, as suggested.
Line 196: I would suggest to substitute “ , Figure 5,” with “ (Figure 5)” or “, as shown in Figure 5,” >> amended as suggested.
Lines 214 – 220: Small differences as you mark here between two single measures are likely due to many reasons. This paragraph does not give to the reader much more information, unless you are not able to relate the change to something that happened and that can make the difference between the two HVSR curves. I also suggest to give the time of the two windows because “in the same day or consecutive days” can be one hour apart or two days apart, that can make a great difference. >> amended to make it clearer that the comparison was made to take account of varying environmental conditions.
Line 311: substitute “in oder assess” with “in order to assess”. >> amended as suggested.
Figures and Tables
Figure 2. some comments/suggestions for Figure 2.
a) as for the explanation in the major comments, I cannot read the left H/V ratio “screenshot”
(displayed vertically). >> Amended with enlarged plot area and clearer labelling of axes.
b) the vertical black lines, representing the location of the Tromino measurements, could be easily substituted with, for example, triangle on the surface. This would clean the figure. >> amended as suggested.
c) Even if it is just an example, it would be interesting to plot the map with the profile. >> map added to appendix, along with other H/V plots of this profile.
d) In the supplementary material you could plot the different H/V measurements for each location, not only for the second position of the Tromino, in order to appreciate the peak variation in a profile, achieved and plotted as contour file. >> amended as suggested.
Figure 6: apart from all the major comments related to the figures (valid here), make these plots squared, so you can plot them in a 2x2 subplot grid. >> Thank you for the suggestion, but due to the distortion of the figures in making a square grid, we do not feel that this would add to the clarity of the figure.
Figure 7: apart from all the major comments related to the figures (valid here), make these plots squared, so you can plot them in a 1x2 subplot grid. >> As for the comment on Figure 6, we do not feel that this would add to the clarity.
Figure 8: I suggest to re-arrange these figures as for Figures 6 and 7. You can put some of the H/V curves together (for example the two with the smoothing at 10%). >> The two curves with smoothing at 10% smoothing have been rearranged. However, as above, we do not feel that square plots would add to the clarity.
Table 1. The table contains too much information in my opinion. A table should be clear and direct.
1) Here there are too many sentences that can easily be in the text (Phase 1 and 2 Objectives for example). >> amended as suggested.
2) The description can be shortened in the table and better explained in the text (in section 2.2.). >> amended as suggested.
3) The Phase 1 and 2 Activities are also long. You can write “HVSR; GPS; laser scan” and then you can explain it much in details in the main text (section 2.2.). >> amended as suggested.
