Damage Evolution Prediction during 2D Scale-Model Tests of a Rubble-Mound Breakwater: A Case Study of Ericeira’s Breakwater
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors have carried out furthermore revision in response to the first round review comments, and the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved. However, the MS needs a minor revision before acceptance for publication. The specific comments are as follows:
(1)Introduction is still not well written. You should give a review of previous literature other than simply list the existing research.
(2) Conclusions should better summarize your key findings. There is a lot of discussion content in the current version. It should be rewritten.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Major revision is suggested. Comments are attached in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The paper proposed a damage evolution prediction method of a rubble mound breakwater. The approach presented in this study is interesting and is recommended for publication after revision. Detailed comments are listed as follows.
1. The format of variables in the equations of the paper should be checked carefully.
2. Advanced references in the field of damage evolution prediction should be further supplemented.
3. The descriptions specific to the introduction and abstract should be further simplified to highlight the core contributions
4. For theories not proposed by the author, references are required.
5. The abstract and the text are independent. Abbreviations in the abstract and text also should be independent.
6. The figures is very unclear and needs to be resubmitted.
Author Response
Please see the attachmeny
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The work is interesting, it has a clear degree of originality, and it might be appropriate for publication in the journal, after performing a minor revision.
1. Please check the “Abstract” carefully! Sigle-line spaces and paragraphs make the “abstract” look too long. Just one paragraph of explanation is enough to summarize the proposed work!
2. Some figures should be redesigned. Figures (3, 4b, 6b, 7, 8) are hardly read and understood. These figures are of poor quality. More clear figures need to be presented. The quality of Figures (3, 4b, 6b, 7, 8) should be as in Figures 1, 2, 4a, 5 and 6a.
3. An Index of Abbreviations would be beneficial for a better understanding of the proposed work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Accept in present form
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have addressed all the comments and I have no more concerns about the paper.
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 paper is a very interesting to the methodology of damage evolution prediction of a Rubble Mound Breakwater. However, the paper needs some improvement before acceptance for publication. The detailed comments are as follows:
(1) It is suggested to amend the title to ‘Damage Evolution Prediction During 2D Scale Model Tests of a Rubble Mound Breakwater’or ‘Damage Evolution Prediction During 2D Scale Model Tests of a Rubble Mound Breakwater: a case study of the Ericeira Breakwater’.
(2) I recommend better description of scientific goal of the article in the introduction. What is/are your hypotheses in this study?
(3) Line 77-83, it is the objective of the of the BSafe4Sea project, not the research purpose of this article.
(4) Line 86-90, The introduction of the article framework is meaningless and is recommended to be deleted.
(5) I didn't see any introduction to Ericeira breakwater. If Ericeirabreakwater is used as a case study in the title, some of that information could be briefly included in the Introduction or Materials and Methods.
(6) What is the basisfor selecting the specification and proportion of tetrapod layers?
(7) Conclusions should better summarize the key findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper describes a new damage prediction on the tetrapod-type breakwater, whereas the current empirical formulation provides a prediction for rock rubble mound breakwater. In this case, this paper will add a new contribution to the prediction of tetrapod stability. The authors investigated the breakwater behaviors under the wave load characteristics of Melby (1999). The profiles subjected to the waves were measured with Kinect to obtain the 3D Point Clouds, and the damage patterns were observed with CloudCompare. This paper shows the benefit of using Kinect to accurately measure the final profile complete with the RGB, which is useful for observing the translation/ rotation of individual tetrapods. In the end, I expect to be provided the updated Melby’s formulation for the tetrapod-type breakwater.
It is an interesting paper since it will provide an updated empirical equation on tetrapod-type breakwater’s stability. It can offer us a new insight into what physical processes determine the stability of this type of breakwater and the prediction of the damage. However, despite the importance and the exciting topic, the authors have to provide more references, clearer information, and thorough discussions in this paper. Please refer to the detailed comments below.
Detailed Comments:
Line 58 : Hm0 e Tp à I think e is typo?
Eq 3 : ‘para’ is typo?
Fig 2: The lines in the background are unnecessary and reduce the visibility of the illustration. The authors can improve the figure with details on the drawing, add the scale or scale bar, and provide clearer detailed section information. It will be helpful for the reader to understand the experiment setup.
Fig 3: Non-English word is spotted in the figure.
Line 148 : typo ‘e’
Section 2 Materials and Methods: It is important to add references to this section to ensure whether you used a solid method in this research or on what arguments the author based on. You mentioned the other measurement methods: mechanical profiler, stereo photo, and AI in section 1. However, you did not mention what papers used Kinect in this type of measurement.
How about the accuracy assessment of point clouds generated with Kinect? You mentioned the point cloud density with grid size as the proxy and the effect of remaining water (5cm depth) that will affect the reading of the laser. I believe you had conducted the calibration before using the Kinect; it will be helpful to mention. Did you move the Kinect step-wise or use a motor to measure the model?
Line 221-227 : Paragraph should be written under the same topic. I see that line 223 belongs to the previous paragraph; however, you set it as a new one. I guess this indentation is typo.
Line 229 : Please explain what algorithm.
Fig 5: Please explain what does the green boxes mean? It is related to Line 228-233, however, you did not describe it clearly.
You have mentioned in the beginning that your hypothesis is Melby’s Formulation is designed for rubble mound. I expect at the discussion, you are reporting the result of physical model vs Melby’s formulation and discussing the ‘Why’. Please give the readers insight what is new and why the formulation does not fit. You just provided a brief explanation on the non-convergence. It will be useful for us, readers, to be given an excellent argumentation.
As promised in the introduction, I expect to be provided the physical processes in the stabilization of the damage of the armour layers, particularly in series A. However, no explanation has been written.
Line 270-271: The coefficients have been adjusted; which parameters and what value?
Conclusion: With the improvements made based on the above comments, this part can be rewritten.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I found an article with serious flaws in terms of its organisation, order, quality of the images, and lack of general and in-depth discussion of the results, suggested experiments and general context of the importance of the research.
The authors propose an analysis based on laboratory experiments in order to establish an alternative damage prediction methodology, based on the volume eroded after the action of various sea states. This is an idea that is already well addressed by the traditional state of the art and, although it could be extended with new experiments, typologies or characteristics of the protection pieces, in this case, the paper does not provide any substantial novelty in this respect.
On the other hand, the objective or scientific contribution of the paper is not clear either. It is proposed:
- a) To adapt Melby's formulation for tetrapods.
- b) To show an alternative way to measure the eroded volume based on the ToF technique.
Neither of these two ideas is perfectly covered or justified in the text, only isolated works or analyses are presented which are not conclusive and, therefore, cannot answer the questions posed.
With respect to Melby's formulation, it is not possible to formulate or modify an equation with such a small number of trials. Moreover, in the same conclusions, the authors already identify three possible reasons why the results obtained do not converge. One particularly relevant fault is the use of the total (incident+reflected) waves, whereas all the authors of this type of formulation work with only the incident wave trains.
On the other hand, the paper devotes a large % of its content to the explanation of the Kinect technique, but in the end it is not clear whether the measured erosion results are adequate and comparable with other techniques already available on the market. This directly invalidates the final discussion.
Therefore, I recommend that the paper to be REJECTED for lack of connection between the experiments, the objective and the results obtained. If the authors wish to propose or adjust a modified formulation for tetrapods, they should at least:
- a) Reproduce the original (rock) tests, adjust the algorithm and tools for measuring erosion, and calibrate these tests to best fit the original formulation.
- b) Once the system is fine-tuned. The rock layer can be changed to tetrapods, the experiments are repeated and the erosions are measured again to finally adjust the empirical equation.
- c) Conduct a sufficiently large set of experiments to provide a fit data cloud that is statistically representative of a realistic range of sea states and levels and extrapolable (engineering) general use.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the author revised the MS according to the comments, only from the research objective supplemented by the author, the existing research methods, test scheme and data quality are difficult to support the expected results.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version of the manuscript is not well-written. Many paragraphs are not following the scientific writing standard. The ideal size of a paragraph is 3-4 sentences. In the manuscript, one can easily spot single sentence paragraphs (e.g., lines 123-15,135-136, 144-145). Thus, making it difficult to understand the manuscript. Again, the authors’ arguments need references. For instance, in lines 39-40, when the authors argue the drag and lift parts of the Morison equation, are dominant. This argumentation should be supported by reference(s). I had mentioned this in the first review, hence stressing methods. However, as the argumentation of the novelty of this manuscript has been built from the introduction to materials and methods, proper (new) references should be provided.
A large portion of the manuscript describes the use of Kinect as a measurement tool. It is not consistent with the main objective of the manuscript; the adaptation of Melby’s formula for tetrapods, which is not well described in the manuscript. Even though I found that the authors also proposed a new method to measure eroded volume, the proposed method is not well described as well.
My concern in the previous review on the result of the physical model vs Melby’s formulation is not clearly explained. I see it as inconclusive. I am afraid that by not describing in detail, the contribution to the field is not understandable or it can be no novelty is provided in this work, rather than to report the experiment results.
The physical processes in the experiment as asked in the previous review are not yet explained. The argumentation becomes weak. It will be better than the justification on the adjustment of coefficient ‘a’ and ‘b’ already necessary in this work to be deeply explained.
Reviewer 3 Report
The reply provided by the authors after the first review is inconclusive and fails to adequately justify the shortcomings initially identified.
I still consider that the paper has an incomplete approach to the study and a method that does not contribute anything new to the current state of the art.
Therefore, my recommendation remains that the paper be REJECTED.
Thank you.
