Experimental Investigation of Wave Propagation and Overtopping over Seawalls on a Reef Flat
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the paper is very relevant. The questions posed and the results would be valuable for coastal design and numerical model validation. It is a very thorough and detailed paper, and it builds up nicely from section to section. It answers questions I had wondered about regarding this and related topics.
Very good experimental description.
Results clearly show the wave transformation over the reef, and the effect of both seawall configurations. Text summarizes it very well. Figures also do a very good job at presenting the results and supporting the analysis. Presenting the results first with no seawall, and then with both configurations is very useful for applying the results in future numerical modeling or real-life applications where the reef profile might be similar.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comment:
This manuscript presents the results of physical model tests on vertical and sloped seawalls on a coral reef flat. A full state of the art review is presented which identifies a gap in the knowledge of wave slamming and overtopping in these structures. These aspects are the focus of the paper.
A very complete test plan is presented, with a total of 252 test cases, in which the evolution of the wave along the reef flat, the pressures on the seawall and the overtopping flow rate are measured.
The manuscript is well written, the results are well presented and the conclusions are consistent. On the other hand, there are certain aspects of the study that raise doubts, which are detailed below:
1- On page 3, when explaining the experimental setup, it is not specified whether the tests are performed with an active reflection control system or not. This is an important point as the reflection generated in the model is not measured.
2 - The geometry of the model at its backreef slope is not specified, but it can be seen that it is not infinite. Is there overtopping at the backreef slope end? Does this affect the free surface measurement of the G6 sensor?
3- In the results given in Figures 4 and 5 and the like, what exactly does eta_m represent? On line 178 of the page it says that it is the mean wave height, is this correct? If so, it is not the most appropriate symbol. Otherwise, it should be better explained what it refers to.
4- On page 8, line 215, ensures that a significant amount of energy is dissipated through breaking and overtopping. In what proportion? A suitable gauge system, capable of separating reflected and transmitted energy, would allow energy dissipation to be assessed.
5- In the discussion, a new formula is proposed for calculating the forces on the seawall (Equation 5) and the overtopping discharge (Equation 6). Both use the value of the incident wave height Hi, but as discussed above, how is it possible to obtain the value of the incident wave height without a suitable system of at least 3 gauges to apply an incident-reflected separation method?
Other minor comments:
- page 3, line 131: a full stop is missing between the word "trench" and the word “The".
- page 3, figure 1: please indicate the dimensions of the distances on the diagram (e.g. "dimensions in metres”).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject of the manuscript presented is very interesting, very innovative and of great importance. The introduction is very precise and provides the necessary elements for the justification of the research. The experimental description is correct. The laboratory work is remarkable.
In my opinion it is an excellent work. However, the results and the discussion can be two separate sections. Even the authors have a section called discussion (3.4. Discussion). Writing this section as a separate item would add a lot to the interpretation of the paper.
There is an error in the numbering of section 3.1.2. Wave propagation for the sloped seawall. It should be 3.1.3.
A very important aspect of the document is the presentation of results. There is confusion regarding the calculation of probability. Line 532 (Normalized probability). It is understood that the normality of the residuals is used as a goodness-of-fit test? Figures 26-27 show the probability of exceedance. But when was it defined? Is it a normal distribution, if this is the case then the Kurtosis of the data sample should be equal to 3. Is there any other possible explanation for this? On which data samples is the probability distribution created? Is there a prior selection of probability distributions?
This section should be clarified or previously defined. The following works may be consulted for reference, if applicable:
Transformation of wave height distribution
https://doi.org/10.1029/JC088iC10p05925
Groupiness Factor and Wave Height Distribution
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(1989)115:1(105)
Experimental investigation of the wave-induced motion of and force distribution along a flexible stem.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2019.739
Figures 24, 25 and 26 present confidence limits, however it is not mentioned how they were calculated.
Finally, while all the work is correct and of high scientific value, the authors mention that: “The modified empirical formulas are proposed for predicting the wave force and mean wave overtopping discharge over the vertical and sloped seawalls”…… However, this important contribution mentioned by the authors is diluted in the work.
A brief summary table is recommended, explaining in detail how each of the empirical formulas used were modified. As well as their contribution in each of the sections: 3.1. Wave propagation process, 3.2. Wave pressure distribution and 3.3. Wave Overtopping.
The work must be accepted after replying, reviewing, resolving and complementing what is noted in this review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your efforts in answering all the doubts and improving the manuscript.
