Non-Hydrostatic Numerical Model of Bragg Resonance on Periodically Submerged Breakwater
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Although the authors have addressed parts of the issues in the first round. However, there are some problems that are not solved:
（1） In the Introduction section, although many literatures on Bragg resonance have been mentioned by the authors, most of them are relatively old. Some latest research progresses on the real applications of Bragg breakwaters should be properly mentioned in the manuscript (e.g., Investigation on the effects of Bragg reflection on harbor oscillations. Coastal Engineering, 170: 103977). The reviewer believes that these lastest applications of Bragg breakwaters would significantly increase the interest of readers on the research topics of Bragg resonance.
(2） The resolutions of Figs. 1 and 2 are still too low.
(3) At page 18, "Conclusion" should be "Conclusions".
Author Response
Reviewer comments and Authors response
1） In the Introduction section, although many literatures on Bragg resonance have been mentioned by the authors, most of them are relatively old. Some latest research progresses on the real applications of Bragg breakwaters should be properly mentioned in the manuscript (e.g., Investigation on the effects of Bragg reflection on harbor oscillations. Coastal Engineering, 170: 103977). The reviewer believes that these lastest applications of Bragg breakwaters would significantly increase the interest of readers on the research topics of Bragg resonance.
Response: After carefully looking into this published paper, I found that it has some relevant connection and similarity to our study as well, like the conclusion that Bragg resonance occur mostly less than 1.0. The work done by Gao et al is a good one and I have decided to include it in the introduction. Thank you reviewer for calling my attention to that.
(2） The resolutions of Figs. 1 and 2 are still too low.
Response: I guess this is due to document transformation, the resolution has been work upon and will be more standard during the production for publication.
(3) At page 18, "Conclusion" should be "Conclusions".
Response: Thank you for this correction, it has been amended.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The manuscript studies the interaction between the waves at the surface of water and the seabed undulations. The authors use SWASH to solve the two-dimensional momentum equations and continuity. In the framework only the fluid flow is solved (single-phase), and the effect of surface elevation is considered as a term added to the equations.
In my view the manuscript can be considered for publication in JMSE only after addressing the following comments:
1 – The authors should distinguish their research form previous works in the literature and highlight the importance of their work. They should explain the gap they are trying to fill. The last paragraph of the introduction should be extended.
4 – The authors should define all the variables used in the equations or in the text, here are some examples of variables which are not defined, “W” (if it is the same as the one in equation (4) then should use \displaystyle or somehow make them look similar) and “d” in equation (5) is defined as “the bottom”, it needs more explanation.
5 – The authors should explain all the equations provided in the manuscript. For example, the derivation of equation (12) is not explained.
Author Response
1 – The authors should distinguish their research form previous works in the literature and highlight the importance of their work. They should explain the gap they are trying to fill. The last paragraph of the introduction should be extended.
Response: we have done that has requested. This can be seen in the last three paragraphs of the introduction. Thank you
4 – The authors should define all the variables used in the equations or in the text, here are some examples of variables which are not defined, “W” (if it is the same as the one in equation (4) then should use \displaystyle or somehow make them look similar) and “d” in equation (5) is defined as “the bottom”, it needs more explanation.
Response: all variable have been defined and more explanation on what "d" stand for have been included in the manuscript. the "w" are both same size and format style. both are small letter w. The slight difference is base on the equation structure, which is similar to other letters as well when they are used in the equation. they tend to look smaller when in fraction form. Thanks
5 – The authors should explain all the equations provided in the manuscript. For example, the derivation of equation (12) is not explained.
Response: All equations in the manuscripts have been explained including equation 12.
This is because equation (12) is similar to equation (2), except that equation (12) has an extra source term \muu, this is directly interpreted as equation (2) represents the calculation method of the computing domain, while equation (12) is only applicable to the wave elimination region (Damping Zone). Through the source item \muu, the function of wave elimination is realized. it was briefly explain just before the equation (12). Thanks
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear author! The paper is well-written and carefully organized. A new model is presented, comparison with existing models and data are given.
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see not only comparison of shapes of dependency K_r(kh), but also estimates of error between experiments, your solution and similar works, like Liu, 2019. Please add a table or a set of additional figures with error estimations.
Also, please, substantiate why do you use tanh nonlinearity in formula (11). Wouldn't it better to use the logistic function, or a certain data-driven approximation?
Author Response
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see not only comparison of shapes of dependency K_r(kh), but also estimates of error between experiments, your solution and similar works, like Liu, 2019. Please add a table or a set of additional figures with error estimations.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we will try and considered this in our future writing looking at
Also, please, substantiate why do you use tanh nonlinearity in formula (11). Wouldn't it better to use the logistic function, or a certain data-driven approximation?
Response: While it's possible to use other activation functions, or logistic function, like the sigmoid or a data-driven approximation, the choice of activation function depends on the specific requirements of the problem and the performance of the model with different activation functions. In some cases, a different activation function may perform better, but in this particular case, we have chosen the tanh function based on its known properties and suitability for the task, and as used in some previous research.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The present version can be accepted.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment and suggestion so far, and we appreciate you finally accept this current version for publication. Thanks
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
Specific comments are attached in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
In the attachment below
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript studies the interaction between the waves at the surface of water and the seabed undulations. The authors use SWASH to solve the two-dimensional momentum equations and continuity. In the framework only the fluid flow is solved (single-phase), and the effect of surface elevation is considered as a term added to the equations.
In my view the manuscript can be considered for publication in JMSE only after addressing the following comments:
1 – The authors should distinguish their research form previous works in the literature and highlight the importance of their work. They should explain the gap they are trying to fill.
2 – The authors should improve the story of the paper. There are many plots in the paper, the authors should reduce the number of plots by managing to show the results with fewer figures, for example having multiple graphs on one figure.
3 – The authors should proofread again and correct the typos, such as “considferation of Brag law’s” in the last paragraph of the introduction.
4 – The authors should define all the variables used in the equations or in the text, here are some examples of variables which are not defined, “W” (capital) and “d” in equation (5), “\eta_b” and “h” in equation (9).
5 – The authors should explain all the equations provided in the manuscript. For example, the derivation of equation (12) is not explained.
6- The authors should demonstrate all the geometric variables, such as “d”, on figure 1, also provide a higher quality version of the figure. Figure 2 is not aligned with the text correctly.
Author Response
In the attachment below
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript has not addressed the comments. In my view, the comments would have improved the manuscript. But if the authors think the comments are not helpful, they should have explained the reasons for not considering them.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
All your comments and suggestions were addressed at first and my response to all your comments and suggestion was attached in a separate file when submitting not typed directly into this comments section. I will copy those responses here again. Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Comments and author responses
The manuscript studies the interaction between the waves at the surface of water and the seabed undulations. The authors use SWASH to solve the two-dimensional momentum equations and continuity. In the framework only the fluid flow is solved (single-phase), and the effect of surface elevation is considered as a term added to the equations.
In my view the manuscript can be considered for publication in JMSE only after addressing the following comments:
1 – The authors should distinguish their research form previous works in the literature and highlight the importance of their work. They should explain the gap they are trying to fill.
Response
The last two paragraphs of our introduction show the difference, importance and uniqueness of our work. First, in the study, we strictly follow Bragg’s law and both the wave propagated and the structure configuration and strictly within the conditions of Bragg's law as stated in paragraph 10. The importance of the research is to show numerically the difference in Bragg resonance and reflection coefficient in the scope of Bragg resonance as stated in paragraph 11. This paper stands as a call to previous and future studies that studying Bragg resonance is not about using two or more structures or setting wave properties without the configuration of Bragg’s law according to the experiment done by Heathershaw (1982).
2 – The authors should improve the story of the paper. There are many plots in the paper, the authors should reduce the number of plots by managing to show the results with fewer figures, for example having multiple graphs on one figure.
Response
Thank you so much for this observation and comments, we will improve on the story, and also the figure. However, in some cases of the figure because of the nature of the result from different scaling, they may not be clearly presented when combined together. In the plotting of those figures, we try our best to make it easy enough for understanding.
3 – The authors should proofread again and correct the typos, such as “considferation of Brag law’s” in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Response
Thank you so much for calling our attention to that, we will proofread it again to make it to perfection.
4 – The authors should define all the variables used in the equations or in the text, here are some examples of variables which are not defined, “W” (capital) and “d” in equation (5), “\eta_b” and “h” in equation (9).
Response
The equation has been checked and corrected and all variables have been well defined accordingly. To mention the “w” in equation 5 is a small letter.
5 – The authors should explain all the equations provided in the manuscript. For example, the derivation of equation (12) is not explained.
Response
We have explained all the equation present in the paper, including equation 12.
6- The authors should demonstrate all the geometric variables, such as “d”, on figure 1, also provide a higher quality version of the figure. Figure 2 is not aligned with the text correctly.
Response
All necessary variables have been included in figure 1, as requested by the reviewer variable such as “d” is not included because it varies all through x. The quality of the figure may have been reduced due to some transformation of the file by the journal, we will work with the Journal to give the best figure format that will be suitable for publication. Also, figure 2 has been adjusted. Thanks
General Response
We really appreciate the reviewer’s comments and suggestions, they really call our attention to some of our mistakes. We hope to generally get all things sorted accordingly and make the paper easier to read and understand. Thank you.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I looked at the authors response to the comments and they mention that the changes will be made to the manuscript, but the revisions are not included the new version of uploaded manuscript. It might be a technical issue, but I can't see any added explanations on the derivations and highlighting the importance of the work in introduction.
Author Response
There may be some technical difficulties. As per the instructions from the JMSE, the file we uploaded after the review process includes the reviewer's comments and corrections, so you can view the changes made to the manuscript by switching to the comment or review track. I have also created another PDF file that will be included in the reviewer response, which should display the highlighted parts as requested. This PDF file represents the corrected and accepted version of the manuscript. I apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate your patience.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript has not fully addressed the comments. The current form of the manuscript does not have a cohesive story and does not explain the methods and ideas with sufficient details. In my view, this manuscript can be majorly revised and resubmitted with changes in the introduction, methodology and discussions.
