Experimental Study on the Stability and Wave Force of a Breakwater Transition under Multiangle Oblique Waves
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The Authors have cited a new research paper numbered [40] in their response to the comments. A discussion on the differences using the methods in [40] and Goda's method has been provided in the Response, which is helpful in addressing the uncertainties arising from using a 2D wave decomposition method in a 3D case.
I think this discussion, including the results such as 8%-15% error, should be included in Section 3.1 where the new Table 4 has been added. It is important to show the limitations of 2D assumptions, and this may contribute to the overall underestimation of impact forces of the empirical equations as well.
In addition, I didn't find where the reference [40] has been cited in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments. According to your comments, all the authors have carefully discussed them item by item. See the attachment for specific replies:
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Although some changes were made in the paper, it is pretty much the same paper with almost the same problems. There is still a lot of room for improvement.
It is very difficult to read the abstract and to understand the purpose of the paper.
Most of the references are difficult to check because they are not written in English.
On line 81 there is a reference to a paper which is not in the list at the end of the paper. It is impossible to identify reference [10] as MORIMOTO.
Equations (2) and (3) should be reviewed and the variables used there explained in the text, especially (H_s)_theta and K_D,theta.
In equation (4) the variable L_C cannot be the unit dike length. This does not make sense.
Lines 117 to 123 are the example of the importance of seeking the advice of an English speaking person. It is almost impossible to understand the meaning of this statement.
In line 132 the reference to CHENG [20] does not make sense, since the title of the paper seems to be related to submarine pipelines and not to vertical caissons.
The statement in lines 141 and 142 is difficult to understand.
In line 231 it should be “weight scale” instead of “gravity scale” since the gravity does not change.
It would be interesting to have more information on the “self-developed automatic water collection device” mentioned in line 249. The same applies to the “independently developed TK2008 wave height acquisition system” of line 256.
It is difficult to understand how a huge negative pressure vortex can be seen in figure 6, as stated in line 292.
The approach used in the results description is questionable. In fact, it would be best to have first the description of the relevant equations and variables - ideally with a scheme detailing some of the variables – and then a description of the results.
In line 310 H’c should be clarified. Probably this is the crest freeboard.
The range 1.21-2.05 of line 325 cannot be seen in table 4.
It is not clear how the effective wave length of line 334 can be computed.
The synchronization rate mentioned in line 398 should be explained.
In line 416 you mention a factor 1.27-142 but it is not clear how one gets to these values.
In the analysis of the armour layer stability (section 3.3) it is not clear how the values in the first columns of table 7 (Test stable weight of Accropode / Outside and Inside) were obtained. Were the Accropode in the armour layer replace until the stability of the armour layer was reached? In such case, how was stability defined?
The title of reference [1] in line 535 is not “Preliminary studies …” but “Inquiry on the design method for deep-water breakwater”
There is an author missing in reference [12]. It should be “Clemente, D.; Calheiros-Cabral, T.; Rosa-Santos, P.; Taveira-Pinto, F.”
In reference [13] the third author is “Nørgaard, J.Q.H.”
In reference [22] the second author is “VAN DER MEER, J.W.”
I do believe the subject deserves a comprehensive revision of the English language usage in the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments. According to your comments, all the authors have carefully discussed them item by item. See the attachment for specific replies:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)
I have carefully read and analyzed the paper. It is about the study of the stability of Accropode blocks used in breakwater armor layers. The study focuses specifically on the bay of Shandong Province and uses a laboratory model to conduct tests. The results show that the maximum horizontal forces on the Acropode blocks are up to 935 kN, while the poor connection between the blocks and the caisson is identified as the main cause of instability.
Even though the language has improved significantly, there is still work to be done. For example, L66 starts with the sentence 'Reference previous research ...', which is poorly worded and very long. The sentence should be split into two parts and revised. Also, there are spaces missing or too many in a lot of places.
L71: Do not use capital letters when writing reference names, e.g. ZHANG et al. should be Zhang et al. This also applies to other instances in the paper.
L165: The authors state that they summarized the empirical formulas and then give Eq. 7 and Eq. 8. Please also state which reference these equations are from.
After L192: Please write a clear paragraph about what this paper aims to research. In other published papers this paragraph usually starts with “The aim of this work is to contribute to our knowledge of ...” or some other similar sentence structure.
Figure 3, Figure 4, etc.: It would be good to use the same font as for the rest of the manuscript (Palatino Linotype)
L301: Add the percentage of difference between Van der Meer and Chinese standards.
Eq. 10 and Eq. 11: it is common to show the equation right after its first mention in the text. In the current version, the equations are not integrated into the text, but are added as equations would be given in an appendix.
Figure 9: Please make the red closed curve smoother and cleaner and add in the caption what the red curve shows
Table 7: The font in the table seems different from the rest of the manuscript.
Author Response
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments. According to your comments, all the authors have carefully discussed them item by item. See the attachment for specific replies:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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 first (and most important) problem has already been covered in a previous review, but has not been sufficiently addressed. This review has therefore been halted until the uncertainties has been clarified. In Table 1 you have given the 'intended' or nominal wave heights for the two water levels. In Section 2.4 you identify that you have used the Goda & Suzuki two-gauge method to separate incident and reflected waves. But, you have not shown the calculated wave heights resulting from that analysis, not have you discussed any uncertainties arising from the use for a 3D problem of a simplistic two-gauge analysis developed for 2D conditions. It is not possible to analyse any subsequent results until the incident wave heights are clarified.
Secondly, you have inverted the angle of obliquity. , presenting angles as 90deg - beta. You compound this by mis-using the term 'positive' as if it means 'normal' or beta=0deg. Please use the conventional approach where normal wave attack is beta = 0 degree.
Reviewer 2 Report
The language of the manuscript is very poor.
The title of the manuscript does not reflect the study.
It is not written well.
Manuscript is an experimental study and the model geometric scale is given as 1/36. The test conditions of prototype were given in Table 1.
Two different water levels of 5.90 m and 0.57 m were studied. If 1/36 geometric scale is used, the water depth in the model will be 1.58 cm for 0.57m water depth of ptototype and the prototype wave height is 3.83 m and it will be 10.6 cm in model. So, it is not possible to generate a wave of 10.6 cm wave height in 1.58 cm water depth.
The paper should be rewritten there are too many mistakes in the presentation of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents an experimental study of a real-life breakwater project. Measurements of important physical parameters (near-structure wave heights, wave forces and hydrodynamic pressure) are measured and compared with the calculations of empirical formulae. Based on the experimental results, the authors have found that the present industrial standards are not on the conservative side and correction factors need to be added to existing equations. The experimental design and results are well presented, with only minor questions as follows that may need to be addressed:
(1) Ln 220-223: The scaling factors are well known under Froude scaling law and do not need to be specified in detail.
(2) Table 1 seems to list the design wave parameters in full scale. It may be clearer to add parameters at reduced scale to the table.
(3) Ln 263-264: Goda's two-point method should only apply to 2-dimensional model tests. The current test is 3-dimensional and the breakwater has a curvature, so not sure if Goda's method can still be used to separate incident and reflected waves.
(4) Ln 273-277: the approach of setting the zero-point of pressure gauges to atmospheric or hydrostatic pressure seems to assume all pressure gauges would always remain either above or below the water surface. Is it also true for those pressure gauges close to still water line which may be subject to the influence of instant water surface?
(5) Table 3: Hs and Tp should be Italic.
(6) Ln 465: How is instability location identified? Is it based on visual observation?
Reviewer 4 Report
Altough the subject seems interesting, it is very difficult to read the paper.
The introduction should be made clearer. The same happens with the description of the results. For every part of the results, there is a statement with an account of the results and a reference to equations that are presented afterwards. I believe it should be the othe way around. First to give the theoretical framework with the relevant equations (possibly with a scheme to explain the variables) and then the result comparison.
There are some comments in the attached file that can be viewed in Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
