Directing Shallow-Water Waves Using Fixed Varying Bathymetry Designed by Recurrent Neural Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1.The limitations of using shallow water wave assumption should be explicitly mentioned in the main text and conclusions.
2.Does the CFD simulation take the turbulence or wave breaking into account?
3. In the Figs.21-25, the free surface elevations should be mearsured from SWL, i.e., the same as those in Figs.4-15.
Englishi is good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a machine-learning approach for designing and optimizing a varying bathymetry to direct shallow water waves to a target location. While the concept of directing wave energy and optimizing bathymetry is scientifically intriguing, upon closer examination, several concerns arise regarding practicality, relevance to existing methodologies, and cost-effectiveness.
The proposed methodology claims to enhance wave energy harvesting efficiency and protect coastal infrastructures by reflecting shallow water waves and focusing them on wave energy converters. However, the practicality of shaping a varying bathymetry to achieve these objectives is questionable. The paper does not provide any insight into the feasibility or cost implications associated with implementing such a complex and expensive engineering solution.
Furthermore, the connection between the proposed methodology and existing state-of-the-art approaches for coastal protection, such as breakwaters, is not adequately addressed. Breakwaters are primarily designed to dissipate wave energy rather than redirect it. This lack of correlation with established practices raises concerns about the novelty and practicality of the proposed method.
Additionally, the paper fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the limitations and potential challenges that may arise during the implementation of the machine-learning model. Addressing these issues is crucial to ensure the reliability and applicability of the proposed approach in real-world scenarios.
Considering the aforementioned concerns, I recommend rejecting this paper. The lack of practicality, inadequate connection to existing coastal engineering practices, and absence of a thorough analysis of limitations undermine the potential contribution of this research to the field. A more comprehensive investigation into the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and practical applications of the proposed methodology is necessary before considering its acceptance for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Major revision is suggested. Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Generally speaking, the quality of English language is good. Moderate editing of English language is suggested.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article slightly improved since the provided comments, although I have still some concerns about some significant shortcomings of the paper, here are some suggestions.
- I understand that the cost analysis is beyond the scope of the work, therefore I don't expect you to include it. But it is very important that the main limitations of the work are explicitly highlighted in the manuscript.
- The work assumes fixed bed, which is a huge limitation and confines the whole methodology to a theoretical exercise. Indeed, reshaping a muddy/sandy bed with a specific bathymetry specifically built to direct waves in a precise direction, will probably be wiped away in a short amount of time, especially in storm conditions, de facto nullyfing the whole purpose and functionality of such an intervention, unless physically-based model are applied contextually. Please add a more thorough explanation of this limitations.
- IMPORTANT: Complexities of hydrodynamic and morphodynamic nonlinear nearshore processes are completely ignored in your methods. Please provide a thorough discussion about the implications of not having a movable bed of your method, and state it in the abstract, introduction and conclusion.
In this regard, please enrich your literature with references about the morphodynamic processes you are not considering in your exercise. Here are some references.
Rijn, L. C. V., Ribberink, J. S., Werf, J. V. D., & Walstra, D. J. (2013). Coastal sediment dynamics: recent advances and future research needs. Journal of hydraulic research, 51(5), 475-493.
Faraci, C., Musumeci, R. E., Marino, M., Ruggeri, A., Carlo, L., Jensen, B., ... & Elsaßer, B. (2021). Wave-and current-dominated combined orthogonal flows over fixed rough beds. Continental Shelf Research, 220, 104403.
Noble, M., Jones, B., Hamilton, P., Xu, J., Robertson, G., Rosenfeld, L., & Largier, J. (2009). Cross-shelf transport into nearshore waters due to shoaling internal tides in San Pedro Bay, CA. Continental Shelf Research, 29(15), 1768-1785.
Marino, M., Faraci, C., & Musumeci, R. E. (2020). Shoaling waves interacting with an orthogonal current. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(4), 281.
Karambas, T. V. (1999). 2DH non-linear dispersive wave modelling and sediment transport in the nearshore zone. In Coastal Engineering 1998 (pp. 2940-2953).
- Add "fixed" after bathymetries in the title, it should be stated in the very beginning the nature of your exercise to not mislead your readers.
For the present version of the manuscript, I suggest major revision. Please revise your manuscript following all the above comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The present version can be accepted.
Moderate editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Thanks for reviewing our manuscript. The English writing of the revised manuscript has been thoroughly checked, and some grammatical issues have been corrected, such as treating "bathymetry" as an uncountable noun throughout the paper.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
There is no much room of improvement for this exercise. Changes were done satisfactorily, therefore I suggest acceptance.
