Physical Experimental Study on the Wave Reflection and Run-Up of a New Ecological Hollow Cube

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

It is the third time I read this manuscript and, in general, some improvements have been made, specifically the authors have incorporated the limitations of the study. However, there are still some comments and suggestions from my side:

• page 3, line 113 to 121 —> this new paragraph is difficult to understand, please consider re-rewritting it 

• page 3, line 138 —> when the authors claim that “it may take a considerable amount of time for the vegetation to fully grow up”, is this statement based on any study that can be cited?

• page 4, line 145 —> the sentence “The geometric scaling factor λl=25 and the time scaling factor λt=(λl)0.5=5” seems not to be well drafted.
  
•  
• page 4, line 166 —> in the title of subsection 2.2.2, what did the authors mean  by the expression Model Work?

• page 4, line 167 —> this first sentence, explaining the dissipation effect of the model, seems to be more a result than a description of the model. I suggest to remove it.

• page 6, line 210 —> the authors are in this section explaining the behaviour of KR but they insert the sentence “At the same water depth, a gentle slope leads to a longer wave run-up distance on the slope”. I think this is not the right place in the manuscript to include this comment.

• page 7, line 224 —> in this section and in the following ones, the authors analyze KR and Ru versus relative water depth, but they describe it as d/H. However, it is fully accepted in breakwater behavior that the relative water depth is described as d/L (depth over wave length).  I suggest the authors to analyze the relation of KR and Ru with d/L and maybe they will find the influence that they are not finding with d/H.

• Page 12, line 343 —> I understand that the authors refer to this equation and to reference [31] and [32], but this is focused solely on Chinese readers, and there are other reference publications that in this reviewer's opinion have a wider readership and are more up to date, as can be “EurOtop (2018). Manual on wave overtopping of sea defences and related structures: An overtopping manual largely based on European research, but for worldwide application”. I suggest to incorporate also a run-up formula based on this or other works.

Other minor comments:

• Differents misprints found:

- line 36, maybe the word “accropides” is “accropodes”?

- line 45, there is a lack of white space after [7]

- line 116, maybe the word “Or” is “For”?

- line 121, there is an extra “ after the word “vegetation”

- line 212, there is an extra ` after the word “waves”

- line 306, there is a extra symbol of breaking parameters here

• page 5, line 177 —> maybe “two different layers” refers to “two additional layers”?

• page 8, line 245 —> it should be desirable to refer here to Figure 8b.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Recommendation: to be accepted

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript discusses a physical experimental study on a new ecological hollow cube for wave reflection and run-up on a slope embankment. It includes frameworks on shallow water long waves, investigations on incident wave forms, and studies on fluid surface motion over variable bottoms. The paper proposes a new type of ecological armor block and analyzes its wave reflection coefficient, wave overtopping, and wave dissipation performance.

English writing and style are adequate with only minor issues in the majority of the manuscript but there are some paragraphs where the quality decreases (abstract and first paragraph of section 2). Therefore, a thorough English check is recommended.

Authors must deal with the following points if the paper is to be accepted.

Major points:

·         Abstract must be rewritten: it looks more like a very abridged summary of findings.

·         Discuss the limitations of the performed study.

·         Some of the objective variables must be clearly defined, mathematically: reflection coefficient, regularity parameter.

Other comments are the following:

-          Line 36: I could not find the word “accropides” in English. Please, clarify.

-          Line 79: extra “””

-          Line 98: Define the acronym “NLSW”.

-          Line 116: Check “waves. Or storm surge”.

-          Line 121: extra “””

-          Line 130: “has the form” should be “has the form shown”.

-          Line 134: check “we only consider the case where only the blocks are …”.

-          Line 145: “The geometric scaling factor λl=25 and the time scaling factor λt=(λl)0.5=5.”, where is the verb?

-          Line 152: “two-dimensional wave flume”. Please, explain why it is two-dimensional.

-          Line 184: What do you understand by “regular waves”? Please, define the concept.

-          Line 306: check “armourξblock”.

-          Lines 316, 317: “relatively small” appears twice very close.

-          Some references have slightly different style than the rest. Check references 3, 22, 23.

English writing and style are adequate with only minor issues in the majority of the manuscript but there are some paragraphs where the quality decreases (abstract and first paragraph of section 2). Therefore, a thorough English check is recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors have correctly addressed the raised questions, so I think that the paper can be accepted

English writing and style are adequate with only minor issues in the majority of the manuscript but there are some paragraphs where the quality decreases. Therefore, a thorough English check is recommended

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

The manuscript is generally good, but there is an underlying issue that concerns me about the results. The authors state that the aim of the new blocks is to provide space for plants or aquatic organisms to grow. However, the blocks were tested without this vegetation. Therefore, I think that the results obtained for reflection and run-up will not be representative of the real situation when there is vegetation in the planting groove. Can the authors clarify this point?

Other minor comments:

* page 2, line 57: is this first sentence of the paragraph  complete? 

* page 2, line 90: the word "figure 1" has a different format

* page 3, line 100: can the authors provide more information about the wave generation system? Does it has an active reflection control system?

* page 4, Table 2: the authors use an storage symbol tu sepárate data, please consider using a comma or a semicolon.

* page 4, Table 2: please consider to give the experimental conditions in model scale, besides prototype scale

* page 5, line 145: units are in mm or in m?

* page 10, line 271: please include the reference of the cited publications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

While the topic is interesting, the research methodology of this work has not been developed as per the guidelines that should be followed for wave flume experiments, such as tests that should have been conducted using irregular waves and appropriate use of scaling.

With apologies, I cannot accept this paper in its current form.

Not applicable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

See the enclosed file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your clarifications and corrections. However, I still believe that the results of the study are only suitable for the first stage of the breakwater's service life (only the construction stage, as the authors themselves explain in their "Response to Reviewer 1" cover letter). Therefore, I think that this point needs to be adequately clarified in the objectives and conclusions of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.