Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear sirs,

this paper presents several experiments conducted to provide validation data for numerical simulations. However, I think that there is room for further improvements.

Introduction

I would suggest improving this section by adding more details about the numerical treatment of fluid-structure interaction problems. In particular, I would suggest mentioning the Arbitrary lagrangian methods, the immersed boundary method, and the fictitious domain methods, for instance by referring to:

Donea J, Giuliani S, Halleux JP. 1982. An arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian finite element method for transient dynamic fluid-structure interactions. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 33:689–723

Hu HH, Patankar NA, Zhu MY. 2001. Direct numerical simulations of fluid-solid systems using the arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian technique. J. Comput. Phys.169:427–62

Griffith, Boyce E., and Neelesh A. Patankar. "Immersed methods for fluid-structure interaction." Annual review of fluid mechanics 52 (2020): 421-448.

Nestola, Maria Giuseppina Chiara, et al. "An immersed boundary method for fluid-structure interaction based on variational transfer." Journal of computational physics 398 (2019): 108884.

Experimental Setup 

This section could be improved by adding some tables where you specify the material parameters, the geometrical setup, and the boundary conditions that have to be adopted to numerically reproduce the results.

Experimental results

This section could be improved by adding details about the error associated with the performed measurements. This is important information for the reproducibility of the experiments.

Moreover, Figure 11 is not clear. The legend is too small. Thus, I would suggest increasing its resolution.

Finally, It would be interesting if the author could  comment more on the novelty of their work by mentioning  the main differences with respect to the the results alredy available in the litearture such as:

Tödter, Simon, et al. "Experimentally Measured Hydroelastic Effects on Impact-Induced Loads During Flat Water Entry and Related Uncertainties." Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 142.1 (2020)

Sun, Hongyue, et al. "Numerical study of air compressibility effects in breaking wave impacts using a CIP-based model." Ocean Engineering 174 (2019): 159-168

Guilcher, Pierre-Michel, Yoann Jus, and Laurent Brosset. "2D Simulations of Breaking Wave Impacts on a Flat Rigid Wall-Part 2: Influence of Scale." International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering 30.03 (2020): 286-298.

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous and thoughtful review comments. The paper was revised by reflecting the opinions, and our responses and corrections to each opinion are as follows.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work, the authors presented a well-documented experimental investigation on the structural responses of a Flat plate with Impacts of breaking waves. The research goal is clearly defined, methods and results have been clearly reported. The problem is indeed intriguing to the marine engineering and fluid-structure interaction research community. Therefore, I recommend the acceptance of the paper.

 

The suggestions regarding minor revision can be found as follows,

1. The experimental setup of figure 5 shows the wave propagation direction is from left to right, and, however, I believe, the snapshots of the wave motion in figure 2 and impact in figure 16 show the wave propagates from right to left. Therefore, to avoid any potential misunderstanding, I encourage authors to change either of the direction.
2. As the authors suggested, the work will be a great candidate for numerical validation. From an open-access perspective, I suggest authors may consider documenting the data and share with the community, which will definitely increase the visibility and impact of authors’ work.

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous and thoughtful review comments. The paper was revised by reflecting the opinions, and our responses and corrections to each opinion are as follows.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the authors presented the experimental data for structural response of a submerged 2D flat plate. The experimental data are useful for the validation of numerical modelling. In this manuscript, the authors also present the results of numerical modelling (ANSYS). In my opinion, this manuscript could be accepted after revision with the following comments:

(1) The scale of the model is a bit too small. The authors may need to justify the dimension (or size) of the model. How such a model can represent the real engineering problem? Perhaps, a dimensional analysis is required.

(2) Some figures looks unclear. Fr example, Figure 10, the FFT results are presented. Almost all curves are together. It almost shows nothing at all. I would suggest just plotted the most significant different two curves, and discuss in the texts. Please also check other figures, too.

(3) It will be nice to also show the breaking wave results from numerical simulation. Since the main focus of this manuscript is the experimental results. This is only suggestion. If the authors feel not appropriate. It is fine.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous and thoughtful review comments. The paper was revised by reflecting the opinions, and our responses and corrections to each opinion are as follows.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I had a look to the revised version sent by the authors and I agree with the publication in the current status.

Author Response

Your valuable comments have been a great help in improving the quality of this paper.
Lastly, we would like to submit the final manuscript by reflecting the editor's notes.
Once again, we appreciate for your kind work.    

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf