The Effectiveness of Adaptive Beach Protection Methods under Wind Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript deals with the evaluation of wind effects on wave transformation in the foreshore zone
causing morphological changes in a sandy cross‐shore profile. Experimental tests have been carried out to this end. A comparative analysis has been performed by considering 2 different beach nourishment types
and beach nourishment protected by a submerged breakwater, under several wind‐wave conditions. The authors suggest the importance of considering the combined action of wind and waves within the beach profile evaluation in the situations in which they may coexist. The manuscript could be of interest to the journal readers, but major revisions are needed.
GENERAL COMMENTS
- Sentences are too long, making often the reader confusing and frustrated (e.g. line 10‐12, 14‐16, 25‐27 and so on). Try to split long sentences into several short sentences within the manuscript.
- Figures are hard to interpret from the printed manuscript version. Besides changing the line color, please try to select different line styles. You can consider also the use of markers. Moreover, try to increase the plot resolution.
- The use of English should be improved.SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1) LINE 9
Please, consider substituting the verb “to review” with another one, e.g. to evaluate.
2) LINE 30
What do you mean for “abnormal climate conditions caused by global warming” which can induce
loss of sand?
3) LINE 40
“Breakwaters” could substitute “submerged breakwaters”, including both emerged and submerged structures. Moreover, submerged breakwaters do not block waves.
4) LINE 44
Among the secondary damage that could threaten coastal structures, also the wave‐induced liquefaction could be mentioned. In this regard, I recommend the reading of some recent works including the wave‐induced soil response around breakwaters:
‐ Zhao, H. Y., et al. "Numerical investigation of dynamic soil response around a submerged rubble mound breakwater." Ocean Engineering 156 (2018): 406‐423.
‐ Celli, D., Li, Y., Ong, M. C., & Di Risio, M. (2019). The role of submerged berms on the momentary liquefaction around conventional rubble mound breakwaters. Applied Ocean Research, 85, 1‐11.
Moreover, you could also be interested in the following recent research paper:
‐ Pasquali, D., Bruno, M. F., Celli, D., Damiani, L., & Di Risio, M. (2019). A simplified hindcast method
for the estimation of extreme storm surge events in semi‐enclosed basins. Applied Ocean Research, 85, 45‐52.
5) LINES 53‐55
Within the soft type methods, their advantages have been already shown in a previous sentence (lines 47‐48). Try to reorganize this part.
6) LINES 57‐58
The authors state that in the case of normal sand nourishment, erosion occurs repeatedly due to an increase in the loss rate. Do you believe it is always true?
7) LINE 62
Consider replacing “a wave” with waves and currents. Both waves ad currents are accountable for long‐shore and cross‐shore sediment transport.
8) LINES 68‐74
Within the “beach nourishment” literature review, I suggest the reading of the following works:
‐ Di Risio, M., Lisi, I., Beltrami, G. M., & De Girolamo, P. (2010). Physical modeling of the cross‐shore short‐term evolution of protected and unprotected beach nourishments. Ocean Engineering, 37(8‐ 9), 777‐789.
‐ Grasso, F., Michallet, H., & Barthélemy, E. (2011). Experimental simulation of shorefacenourishments under storm events: A morphological, hydrodynamic, and sediment grain size analysis. Coastal Engineering, 58(2), 184‐193.
9) LINE 82
The authors state that very few studies consider the coexistence of waves and wind. Nevertheless, no one has been mentioned in the manuscript.
10) LINE 85
The wind is indirectly accountable for morphological change. It has a direct effect on wave transformation instead. Please, consider rephrasing that.
11) LINE 105
How does the absorbing wave system function work?
12) LINE 107
Figure 1 does not show any information regarding the nourishment section, area of erosion and so on. It seems to represent the experimental layout instead.
13) LINES 113‐114
The sentence is unclear. “A wave” means one single wave, moreover what do you mean for “…was created at 0.5‐hour interval for the first 0.5 hour”?
14) LINE 120
It seems that the authors refer to both the formulas (1) and (2) to evaluate the erosive potential of waves. Nevertheless, it seems that only formula (1) has been used. Please, clarify the concept.
15) WITHIN SECTION 2
No information regarding the offshore water depth has been given.
16) LINE 150
There is a typo in table 1. Please, substitute “tyep” with “type”.
17) LINE 155
Wind with speed equal to 0 m/s actually means absence of wind.
18) LINE 165
How did you measure the fall velocity?
19) LINE 166
The description of the submerged breakwater has been already addressed in the introduction section.
20) LINE 170‐173
Try to describe the experimental tests directly. Moreover, at this stage is not clear if the submerged
breakwater was installed for just one or for all the configurations.
21) LINE 194
8 capacitive wave‐height meters should be replaced with 8 capacitive wave gauges.
22) WITHIN MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGE SUBSECTION
To help the reader, consider renaming the cases 0.1 mm d, 1 mm d, 5 mm d and 0.1 mm + bw with letters or numbers, e.g. case B01, case B02, and so on.
23) LINE 231
The use of “however is improper. Consider replacing with “although”.
24) LINE 236
Dealing with physical model tests, the use of “large scale” could make the reader confusing.
25) LINE 288
What do you mean for significant wave height evaluated at the beginning of each time step?
26) LINE 289
20 Hz is not an interval but a sampling frequency.
27) LINE 292
Consider replacing water level with water depth.
28) LINE 294
From the upper panel of Figure 6, the shoaling effect is not appreciable.
29) LINE 297
Indications about the percentage of wave height change could be helpful.
30) LINE 307
It is not the change to decrease but the significant wave height instead.
31) WITHIN FIGURE 6
Please, add also Hs (cm) on the y‐label. Moreover, there are typos (norishment).

32) LINE 322
A reference to Figure 7 is advised.
33) LINE 330
What do you mean for constant water level? Are you referring to constant significant wave height instead?
34) LINE 327
The trend depicted in Figure 6 is similar to the one of Figure 7. The waves seem to break at the same point. If it was not so, please clarifying the concept since it is not appreciable from the comparison of the figures.
35) LINE 343
It seems that after 200 cm, the deformation was higher. Moreover, what do you mean for “constant water depth change”?
36) LINE 431
Please, add the unit of measurement to “1.0” and to the other frequencies.
37) LINE 455
A wave is not applied.

Author Response

I appreciate your review. This was the chance that my paper is more systematic and reasonable.

I attached two paper. One is revision paper with your comment. The other one contained other review contents and native speaker's revision about grammar and sentences.

There are revisions

1) LINE 9

Please, consider substituting the verb “to review” with another one, e.g. to evaluate.

-> “to review” is revised “to evaluate”

2) LINE 30

What do you mean for “abnormal climate conditions caused by global warming” which can induce

loss of sand?

-> For example, in winter season of korea, abnormal trough is formed occasionally and high waves with long wave period are generated. there are a few damage cases like beach erosion during 2010 to 2019 in the east coast of korea.

3) LINE 40

“Breakwaters” could substitute “submerged breakwaters”, including both emerged and submerged structures. Moreover, submerged breakwaters do not block waves.

-> “blockage” is revised to “blockage or reduction”

4) LINE 44

Among the secondary damage that could threaten coastal structures, also the wave‐induced liquefaction could be mentioned. In this regard, I recommend the reading of some recent works including the wave‐induced soil response around breakwaters:

‐ Zhao, H. Y., et al. "Numerical investigation of dynamic soil response around a submerged rubble mound breakwater." Ocean Engineering 156 (2018): 406‐423.

‐ Celli, D., Li, Y., Ong, M. C., & Di Risio, M. (2019). The role of submerged berms on the momentary liquefaction around conventional rubble mound breakwaters. Applied Ocean Research, 85, 1‐11.

Moreover, you could also be interested in the following recent research paper:

‐ Pasquali, D., Bruno, M. F., Celli, D., Damiani, L., & Di Risio, M. (2019). A simplified hindcast method

for the estimation of extreme storm surge events in semi‐enclosed basins. Applied Ocean Research, 85, 45‐52.

-> above three references are added to explain the secondary damage

5) LINES 53‐55

Within the soft type methods, their advantages have been already shown in a previous sentence (lines 47‐48). Try to reorganize this part.

-> The sentences are revised to the lines 51 to 55.

6) LINES 57‐58

The authors state that in the case of normal sand nourishment, erosion occurs repeatedly due to an increase in the loss rate. Do you believe it is always true?

-> This sentence is intended about the condition of erosive wave incidence. Also, in the east coast of Korea, large amount of nourishment work has been conducted for beach vacationer every year.

7) LINE 62

Consider replacing “a wave” with waves and currents. Both waves ad currents are accountable for long‐shore and cross‐shore sediment transport.

-> “a wave” is revised to “waves and currents”

8) LINES 68‐74

Within the “beach nourishment” literature review, I suggest the reading of the following works:

‐ Di Risio, M., Lisi, I., Beltrami, G. M., & De Girolamo, P. (2010). Physical modeling of the cross‐shore short‐term evolution of protected and unprotected beach nourishments. Ocean Engineering, 37(8‐ 9), 777‐789.

‐ Grasso, F., Michallet, H., & Barthélemy, E. (2011). Experimental simulation of shore face nourishments under storm events: A morphological, hydrodynamic, and sediment grain size analysis. Coastal Engineering, 58(2), 184‐193.

-> above two references are added to explain nourishment.

9) LINE 82

The authors state that very few studies consider the coexistence of waves and wind. Nevertheless, no one has been mentioned in the manuscript.

-> the sentence is revised to “most studies, especially model test, have been carried out on morphological change with waves.”

10) LINE 85

The wind is indirectly accountable for morphological change. It has a direct effect on wave transformation instead. Please, consider rephrasing that.

->“the influence of wind” is revised to “the influence of wave action with wind variation”

11) LINE 105

How does the absorbing wave system function work?

-> On the wave generating panel, wave gauge is attached. if the wave is increased from target wave signal during the test, the wave generating panel reduce the wave hight and period to fit the signal.

12) LINE 107

Figure 1 does not show any information regarding the nourishment section, area of erosion and so on. It seems to represent the experimental layout instead.

-> the nourishment area is expressed

13) LINES 113‐114

The sentence is unclear. “A wave” means one single wave, moreover what do you mean for “…was created at 0.5‐hour interval for the first 0.5 hour”?

-> the sentence is revised to “The measurement of beach profile evolution is conducted 0.5h interval...”

14) LINE 120

It seems that the authors refer to both the formulas (1) and (2) to evaluate the erosive potential of waves. Nevertheless, it seems that only formula (1) has been used. Please, clarify the concept.

-> formula 2 is mentioned line 130 to 133 and C in the table 1. also I consider the wave decision with the two formula

15) WITHIN SECTION 2

No information regarding the offshore water depth has been given.

-> the offshore water depth is expressed on the Figure.1

16) LINE 150

There is a typo in table 1. Please, substitute “tyep” with “type”.

-> “Tyep” are revised to “Type”

17) LINE 155

Wind with speed equal to 0 m/s actually means absence of wind.

-> Yes. it does.

18) LINE 165

How did you measure the fall velocity?

-> the fall velocities were measured in the wave flume and compare the exist data in the journal.

19) LINE 166

The description of the submerged breakwater has been already addressed in the introduction section.

-> in the sentence “, which is applied frequently due to its advantages including the fact that the whole structure can be constructed underwater, did not destroy the natural landscape and” is deleted.

20) LINE 170‐173

Try to describe the experimental tests directly. Moreover, at this stage is not clear if the submerged

breakwater was installed for just one or for all the configurations.

-> the sentence is revised to “In particular, many studies show that the morphological change was directly affected depending on the detached distance, crest with, crest depth, porosity and shape of submerged breakwater [26-29].”

21) LINE 194

8 capacitive wave‐height meters should be replaced with 8 capacitive wave gauges.

-> “8 capacitive wave‐height meters” is revised to “8 capacitive wave gauges”.

22) WITHIN MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGE SUBSECTION

To help the reader, consider renaming the cases 0.1 mm d, 1 mm d, 5 mm d and 0.1 mm + bw with letters or numbers, e.g. case B01, case B02, and so on.

->I did not reflecting your instruction this time but in final version before print, I will update as you mentioned.

23) LINE 231

The use of “however” is improper. Consider replacing with “although”.

-> “However” is revised to “Although”

24) LINE 236

Dealing with physical model tests, the use of “large scale” could make the reader confusing.

“large scale” is revised to “large amount of”

25) LINE 288

What do you mean for significant wave height evaluated at the beginning of each time step?

->If the beach profile change is progressed, the wave characteristics are also changed. So to compare the wave hight with each profile condition like initial, 0.5hr later, 1.5 to 4.5. later . the measurement were conducted on the beginning part.

26) LINE 289

20 Hz is not an interval but a sampling frequency.

->Yes, 20Hz is wave sampling rate.

27) LINE 292

Consider replacing water level with water depth.

->“water depth” is revised to “water level”

28) LINE 294

From the upper panel of Figure 6, the shoaling effect is not appreciable.

->the data is raw data. not modified.

29) LINE 297

Indications about the percentage of wave height change could be helpful.

->the percentages is indicated on the text.

30) LINE 307

It is not the change to decrease but the significant wave height instead.

->“change of wave height” is revised to “wave height“

31) WITHIN FIGURE 6

Please, add also Hs (cm) on the y‐label. Moreover, there are typos (norishment).

-> Hs(cm) is added in the figure 6.

32) LINE 322

A reference to Figure 7 is advised.

-> Hs(cm) is added in the figure 7.

33) LINE 330

What do you mean for constant water level? Are you referring to constant significant wave height instead?

-> In the figure6, the wave variation on the P1 with d50:0.1mm is very small. Because it is located in the gravel, wave is not reached but just water depth is fluctuated. in the test the variation of water depthon the P1 is small, so i expressed constant water level.

34) LINE 327

The trend depicted in Figure 6 is similar to the one of Figure 7. The waves seem to break at the same point. If it was not so, please clarifying the concept since it is not appreciable from the comparison of the figures.

-> the text is revised in the main body..

35) LINE 343

It seems that after 200 cm, the deformation was higher. Moreover, what do you mean for “constant water depth change”?

->“the constant water depth change” is measured value on P1 with X:85cm.

36) LINE 431

Please, add the unit of measurement to “1.0” and to the other frequencies.

-> the unit; Hz is added

37) LINE 455

A wave is not applied.

->regarding the profile change with d50:5mm, the gravel dune is formed by wave action.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have revised the manuscript, it deals with an interesting topic. Anyway I suggest major changes essentially because the quality of English is a bit poor, Authors use long and complex sentences and repeat many words.  I marked in yellow (see attached file) no clear words or sentences that have to be revised and corrected others but such changes are NOT exhaustive. Further work is required.

The discussion session has almost no references and it has to be improved by comparing results obtained in this research with ones recorded by similar studies, stressing what is new respect to them. Probably several Authors have carried similar experiments in wave tanks and, anyway can be compared with experiences carried out in real natural conditions.

Maybe this paper, which deals with grain-size stability, even if general, could be of interest.

Title; A probabilistic approach to borrow sediment selection in beach nourishment projects

Coastal Engineering 139 (2018) 32–35

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I appreciate your review. This was the chance that my paper is more systematic and reasonable.

I attached revision paper. The paper contains other reviewer's comment and native speaker's revision about grammar and sentences. Please, check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is my second review of the manuscript. First, I would like to thank the authors for their replies.

As per my first review, in my opinion the topic of the manuscript could be of interest for the Journal readers. Nevertheless, I must ask to the authors some further efforts to make it ready for publication. Some of the replies of the authors need some further clarifications. 

In the followings I copy some of the concerns of my first review, the related authors’ replies and my further comments.

GENERAL COMMENTS

- The use of English and the readability of the paper has been improved.

MAJOR CONCERNS

1) – previously 1) LINE 9

Please, consider substituting the verb “to review” with another one, e.g. to evaluate.

 -> “to review” is revised “to evaluate”

Please, consider extending the advice to all the manuscript and to the on-line version of the abstract.

2) – previously 2) LINES 29-30

What do you mean for “abnormal climate conditions caused by global warming” which can induce loss of sand?

 -> For example, in winter season of korea, abnormal trough is formed occasionally and high waves with long wave period are generated. there are a few damage cases like beach erosion during 2010 to 2019 in the east coast of korea.

The abnormal climate conditions, caused by the possible global warming, directly affect the wave generation and transformation. The effect on the loss of sand is then collateral.

3) – previously 6) LINES 57-58

The authors state that in the case of normal sand nourishment, erosion occurs repeatedly due to an increase in the loss rate. Do you believe it is always true?

-> This sentence is intended about the condition of erosive wave incidence. Also, in the east coast of Korea, large amount of nourishment work has been conducted for beach vacationer every year.

The beach erosion implies a loss of sediments beyond the depth of closure. Rather than erosion phenomenon, the beach reshaping phenomenon should be mentioned. Moreover, the sentence “so gravel nourishment…is applied more frequently” requires a citation. Alternatively, consider removing “gravel”.

4) - previously 11) LINE 105

How does the absorbing wave system function work?

-> On the wave generating panel, wave gauge is attached. if the wave is increased from target wave signal during the test, the wave generating panel reduce the wave hight and period to fit the signal.

The authors’ replay should be included within the manuscript.

5) - previously 15) WITHIN SECTION 2

No information regarding the offshore water depth has been given.

-> the offshore water depth is expressed on the Figure.1

The offshore water depth could be included in Table 1.

6) LINE 214-215

Please, consider reformulating the sentences “For the condition of no wind…sand. The erosion occurred…"

The conjunction between the two sentences is missing.

7) - previously 25) LINE 288

What do you mean for significant wave height evaluated at the beginning of each time step?

->If the beach profile change is progressed, the wave characteristics are also changed. So to compare the wave hight with each profile condition like initial, 0.5hr later, 1.5 to 4.5. later . the measurement were conducted on the beginning part.

Please, quantify the “beginning part” within the manuscript. Indication about the sampling duration is required.

8) - previously 28) LINE 294

From the upper left panel of Figure 6, the shoaling effect is not appreciable.

->the data is raw data. not modified.

It could be true from a qualitative point of view, but it is still not appreciable from the upper left panel of Figure 6, where the water level is not depicted.

9) - previously 31) WITHIN FIGURE 6

Please, add also Hs (cm) on the y‐label. Moreover, there are typos (norishment).

-> Hs(cm) is added in the figure 6.

η(cm) should be replaced by Elevation (cm) (or z (cm)) to be consistent with other Figures (e.g. Figure 9). Moreover, the caption states: “Comparison between beach profile evolution and wave distribution after 4h”. Nevertheless, at line 108 it is stated that the beach profile evolution was measured at 0.5-h intervals for the first 0.5 h and 1-h intervals until a total of 4.5 h. Therefore, the beach profile evolution was measured at 0.5h, 1.5h, 2.5h, 3.5h and 4.5h. Probably 4h should be replaced by 4.5h.

10) - previously 32) LINE 322

A reference to Figure 7 is advised.

-> Hs(cm) is added in the figure 7.

At line 283-284 the authors state that ….and the results (Figure 6 and 7) were obtained at the beginning of each time step. Then, they comment the results illustrated in Figure 6 and thereafter the results illustrated in Figure 7. In these two text parts references to Figures 6 and 7 should be mentioned (e.g. as illustrated in the upper panel of Fig…).

11) - previously 33) LINE 330

What do you mean for constant water level? Are you referring to constant significant wave height instead?

-> In the figure6, the wave variation on the P1 with d50:0.1mm is very small. Because it is located in the gravel, wave is not reached but just water depth is fluctuated. in the test the variation of water depthon the P1 is small, so i expressed constant water level.

First, the sentence refers to Figure 7. Then, it cannot be stated that “A constant water level occurred…, which was affected by wave runup as time passed.” Runup is a dynamic phenomenon which is inconsistent with a constant water level.

Author Response

Thank you for your advice. I made replies. Check them, please.

1) – previously 1) LINE 9

Please, consider substituting the verb “to review” with another one, e.g. to evaluate.

-> “to review” is revised “to evaluate”

Please, consider extending the advice to all the manuscript and to the on-line version of the abstract. 

☞ “To review” was revised to “to evaluate” in the whole paper.

2) – previously 2) LINES 29-30

What do you mean for “abnormal climate conditions caused by global warming” which can induce loss of sand?

-> For example, in winter season of korea, abnormal trough is formed occasionally and high waves with long wave period are generated. there are a few damage cases like beach erosion during 2010 to 2019 in the east coast of korea.

The abnormal climate conditions, caused by the possible global warming, directly affect the wave generation and transformation. The effect on the loss of sand is then collateral. 

☞ I totally agree to your opinion. As you asked at the first review, I intended sand loss is happened with various causes by “abnormal climate conditions caused by global warming”

3) – previously 6) LINES 57-58

The authors state that in the case of normal sand nourishment, erosion occurs repeatedly due to an increase in the loss rate. Do you believe it is always true?

-> This sentence is intended about the condition of erosive wave incidence. Also, in the east coast of Korea, large amount of nourishment work has been conducted for beach vacationer every year. 

The beach erosion implies a loss of sediments beyond the depth of closure. Rather than erosion phenomenon, the beach reshaping phenomenon should be mentioned. Moreover, the sentence “so gravel nourishment…is applied more frequently” requires a citation. Alternatively, consider removing “gravel”. 

☞ In the sentence, “Gravel nourishment” was changed to “Nourishment”

4) - previously 11) LINE 105-108

How does the absorbing wave system function work?

-> On the wave generating panel, wave gauge is attached. if the wave is increased from target wave signal during the test, the wave generating panel reduce the wave hight and period to fit the signal.

The authors’ replay should be included within the manuscript. 

☞ The contents regarding the wave absorbing system was added.  

5) - previously 15) WITHIN SECTION 2

No information regarding the offshore water depth has been given.

-> the offshore water depth is expressed on the Figure.1

The offshore water depth could be included in Table 1. 

☞ The water depth was added in table.1 and line 159

6) LINE 214-215

Please, consider reformulating the sentences “For the condition of no wind…sand. The erosion occurred…"

The conjunction between the two sentences is missing. 

☞ Line 216-218, the sentence was revised.

7) - previously 25) LINE 288

What do you mean for significant wave height evaluated at the beginning of each time step?

->If the beach profile change is progressed, the wave characteristics are also changed. So to compare the wave hight with each profile condition like initial, 0.5hr later, 1.5 to 4.5. later . the measurement were conducted on the beginning part.

Please, quantify the “beginning part” within the manuscript. Indication about the sampling duration is required.

☞ Line 286-289, measured time and sampling rate were added.

8) - previously 28) LINE 294

From the upper left panel of Figure 6, the shoaling effect is not appreciable.

->the data is raw data. not modified.

It could be true from a qualitative point of view, but it is still not appreciable from the upper left panel of Figure 6, where the water level is not depicted. 

☞ Water level was depicted in the figs 4 to 8.

9) - previously 31) WITHIN FIGURE 6

Please, add also Hs (cm) on the y‐label. Moreover, there are typos (norishment).

-> Hs(cm) is added in the figure 6.

η(cm) should be replaced by Elevation (cm) (or z (cm)) to be consistent with other Figures (e.g. Figure 9). Moreover, the caption states: “Comparison between beach profile evolution and wave distribution after 4h”. Nevertheless, at line 108 it is stated that the beach profile evolution was measured at 0.5-h intervals for the first 0.5 h and 1-h intervals until a total of 4.5 h. Therefore, the beach profile evolution was measured at 0.5h, 1.5h, 2.5h, 3.5h and 4.5h. Probably 4h should be replaced by 4.5h.

☞ The legend of Y axis with η(cm) was revised to elevation in the figs 6 to 8. And the caption with 4h was revised to “4.5h” in the fig.8.

10) - previously 32) LINE 322

A reference to Figure 7 is advised.

-> Hs(cm) is added in the figure 7.

At line 283-284 the authors state that ….and the results (Figure 6 and 7) were obtained at the beginning of each time step. Then, they comment the results illustrated in Figure 6 and thereafter the results illustrated in Figure 7. In these two text parts references to Figures 6 and 7 should be mentioned (e.g. as illustrated in the upper panel of Fig…).

☞ Line 290. 312, 325, 335. The citation of figures in the text was added

11) - previously 33) LINE 330

What do you mean for constant water level? Are you referring to constant significant wave height instead?

-> In the fig. 6, the wave variation on the P1 with d50:0.1mm is very small. Because it is located in the gravel, wave is not reached but just water depth is fluctuated. in the test the variation of water depthon the P1 is small, so i expressed constant water level.

First, the sentence refers to Figure 7. Then, it cannot be stated that “A constant water level occurred…, which was affected by wave runup as time passed.” Runup is a dynamic phenomenon which is inconsistent with a constant water level. 

☞ Line 332. the sentence was revised (A constant water level -> Relatively small wave variation of about 10.5%).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have carried out many corrections and clarified several not clear aspects of  the manuscript. In the "Discussion" I still miss some comparison with other similar studies....anyway the new version was improved respect to the initial one.

Author Response

Thank you for your advice. Check the revision file, please.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Little observations are enclosed in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I revised texts as you instructed in the paper. Check them, please.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx