Visualization Investigation of Energy Dissipation Induced by Eddy Currents for a Solitary-Like Wave Passing over Submerged Breakwater Sets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deserves to be published in its current form,
however a better global development would be a great asset
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer’s previous comment and we will improve the quality of the manuscript based on the suggestions of Editor and Reviewers. The authors are very grateful for the clear and valuable comments of respected reviewer about this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper investigates eddy formation resulting from the interaction between different types of submerged breakwaters and solitary waves.
The paper overall reads well and it is obvious the authors have put considerable effort in refining the language.
Minor editorial comment: the captions of figures are not consistent - some are made bold, others not.
It would be beneficial to the paper if the authors were to include a sentence or two in the introduction on the novelty to emphasise the paper's contribution and novelty to the field.
I believe that in the title of Section 2, it is better to use setup, rather than setups, but this is a suggestion rather than a comment and I leave it up to the authors to decide.
Please add supporting reference(s) to the first paragraph of section 2 (the part on solitary waves and landslides). The authors should include a definition for r in eq (1).
Please define the transmission and reflection coefficients and provide the reference(s) used.
How did the authors decide to select the geometries of the breakwaters? What was the specific reasoning behind the choices? Similarly, the choice in the separation distance is not clear. The authors can expand the discussion considerably.
What other methods are approaches can be used to experimentally measure the case investigated by the authors? Are there any benefits to using the method adopted and why?
Other than the introduction, the paper can be expanded to include more details. For instance, the conclusion should ideally not be in bullet point form in my opinion.
It is also not clear how the study fits in the wider literature. What is the motivation of performing this study experimentally, and are there other less expensive alternatives?
The authors should shift the focus of the figures containing the undulating breakwaters? The beginning of the breakwater in the tandem case is not visible. Additionally, although I appreciate this may be due to the data visualisation, it seems as though the rectangular breakwater changes shape.
What are the practical implications of the study? If a coastal engineer, wishing to implement a breakwater were to read your work, what sort of advise and conclusion should the engineer remember? You may address this by strengthening the conclusion. For example, the rectangular breakwater dissipated x% more/less energy than the undulating breakwater. In this case one may reasonably ask: what if the number of steps/undulations were to be increased/decreased? Alternatively, what if the height distribution of these steps/undulations changed? Would the results be significantly affected or not?
Author Response
- The captions of figures are not consistent - some are made bold, others not.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer for pointing out the inconsistencies in the manuscript. We have found them all out and corrected them.
- It would be beneficial to the paper if the authors were to include a sentence or two in the introduction on the novelty to emphasise the paper's contribution and novelty to the field.
Response: The reason is mainly to determine the relationship between wave energy attenuation and vortices induced by submerged BWs, which have not been widely investigated through experimental visualization. We mentioned the reason at the end of the first paragraph, but not highlighted them. To put more emphasis on the reason, we have again emphasized the reason at the beginning of the last paragraph (L75-L76) in the introduction.
- I believe that in the title of Section 2, it is better to use setup, rather than setups, but this is a suggestion rather than a comment and I leave it up to the authors to decide.
Response: We have adjusted the title of Section 2 as suggested by the reviewer.
- Please add supporting reference(s) to the first paragraph of section 2 (the part on solitary waves and landslides). The authors should include a definition for r in eq (1).
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s previous comment. We have added several supported references for related solitary wave generation as shown in the manuscript (L98). As for the parameter r is simply the distance to the vortex center. We have rephrased the L144-L147 for better clarity.
- Please define the transmission and reflection coefficients and provide the reference(s) used.
Response: The transmission coefficient and reflection coefficient are defined as the ratio of the transmitted wave height to the incident wave height and the ratio of the reflected wave height to the incident wave height according to Goda and Suzuki (1976) and Mansard and Funke (1980). We have corrected this in the manuscript (L211-L213).
- How did the authors decide to select the geometries of the breakwaters? What was the specific reasoning behind the choices? Similarly, the choice in the separation distance is not clear. The authors can expand the discussion considerably.
Response: The reason why we chose these two geometries is trying to resemble stair-step structures with rectangular BWs and underwater dunes with undulating BWs. The former is an engineering structure and the latter is formed by natural forces. The current choice of the separation distance is the width of one block. As the response to the 7th comment, we have also designed and conducted different experiments considering the various separation distances. We wish to publish the analyzed results soon in the coming future. Again, we appreciate the reviewer’s precious comment, and we have added more descriptions in the 2nd section for clarity (L111 and L113-L114).
- What other methods are approaches can be used to experimentally measure the case investigated by the authors? Are there any benefits to using the method adopted and why?
Response: The reason why we conducted these experiments mainly due to the lack of the description of the relationship between wave energy attenuation and the induced vortices (L46-L48 and L75-L76), and the analyses using the PIV technique was considered at the very beginning. Due to the improvement of the software technology in image processing, we were considering if it is possible to conduct the same experiments with the same settings. In other words, we are trying to obtain the results with a more economical approach, and the results are promising in our cases. However, in the following experiments, as mentioned in the response of the 7th comment, we have found out this approach is more suitable for experiments on a smaller scale. If the experimental scale becomes large, it is still necessary to adopt laser sheet and illuminated particles to reduce to effects of lateral movements.
- Other than the introduction, the paper can be expanded to include more details. For instance, the conclusion should ideally not be in bullet point form in my opinion.
Response: As suggested by both the Editor and the Reviewer, we have reorganized our Conclusion section to avoid using bullet points.
- It is also not clear how the study fits in the wider literature. What is the motivation of performing this study experimentally, and are there other less expensive alternatives?
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s precious comment. The reason why we conducted these experiments mainly due to the lack of the description of the relationship between wave energy attenuation and the induced vortices (L46-L48 and L75-L76) since the induced vortices could play an important role in wave energy attenuation. As the response to the 7th comment, we have found out this approach is more suitable for experiments of smaller scale according to our current experiences.
- What are the practical implications of the study? If a coastal engineer, wishing to implement a breakwater were to read your work, what sort of advise and conclusion should the engineer remember? You may address this by strengthening the conclusion. For example, the rectangular breakwater dissipated x% more/less energy than the undulating breakwater. In this case one may reasonably ask: what if the number of steps/undulations were to be increased/decreased? Alternatively, what if the height distribution of these steps/undulations changed? Would the results be significantly affected or not?
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s previous comment, and we also added the number of percentages, which is 1.29 for the single set and 1.27 for the composite set, in our conclusion. As asked by the reviewer, what is the most significant factor which affects the wave energy attenuation. This is the same question we would like to answer. Therefore, we have also conducted different experiments and analyzed the results. We wish to have the results soon and publish them in the coming future.
