Numerical Modelling of Beach Profile Evolution with and without an Artificial Reef

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is based on the application of the Xbeach model to evaluate the impact of submerged bbarriers on regular wave motion.

The study is highly analytical and theoretical. Some points are obscure to me:

1) the experiment must be reproducible, so have to add a lot of technical details in materials and methods.

2) the validation with what is done? What validates your models?

3) what can be a scope of practical application of this work? I suggest adding a part of text in the conclusions, where you describe the coastal impacts and why this model and approach may be important (add bibliography, e.g. Bonaldo et al 2020 10.1002/joc.6524, etc), especially from the perspective of climate change and adaptability to new wave regimes. 

4) In order to make this work, closer to a scientific paper, and less to a technical report, I suggest contextualizing it in a scientific context, expanding the bibliography and potential current and future applications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an honest, technically sound paper. I’m in favor of getting these results out and available to practitioners. However, this paper needs some attention.  It is not clear to me how the conclusions add to existing studies. What’s new? The enumerated conclusions are specific to the limited situation modeled and the new results seem unnecessary to reach the general conclusion (last paragraph).  The English is good, but a little stilted enough to obscure the meaning.

Line 47. “Highlighted”  What is needed?  Why?

Lines 49 and 53.  What are the “traditional” and “untraditional reefs?  Why “indirectly”?

Line 59 et al.  The introduction should specify which studies are physical models, which are mathematical model and which are field studies.

Line 68 “…pure currents…”  Meaning no waves?

Line 84.  Why did Ma conclude this?  Was the present study designed to fill this gap?

Line 86. “…present study…”  Not clear what’s new here. Seems like the previous work has addressed the issues.

Lines 98 to 102. I’m afraid I didn’t understand this. Can it be made clearer?

Figure 1. The horizontal axis should be labeled with the “X(m)” the same as used in the subsequent figures.

Figure 2. Are all these frames needed?  Where is the “breaking” and “plunging” (Line 142)?

Line 142  “…last moment…” Meaning the final condition?

Table 1. Necessary? Perhaps just a sentence would be adequate.

Line 167. “…different…”  Meaning with and without the reef or something else?

Section 3.1.  Not clear. What is the evidence for the bimodal waves (line 174)? What is the “critical value” (Line 177)?  Where is the “…wave breaking in advance..” in figure 4?  Why “[38]” (Line 182)? Is this some special definition?  “Meanwhile…” (Line 186). What is the meaning (importance) of this?  Line 194 “…water depth reduces..” meaning the shallower water over the reef or something else?  Line 206, why “quasi” aren’t these just Airy waves?  Line 207 “…negative…”  meaning away from the beach?Line 211 “…on top of the reef…” the lovcartion of the reef should be shown on all figures (4,5,6.7).

Line 224. “m²/s” Units meaning m³/m-s (line 244)?

Line 239 and 241. What’s the difference between the “peak” and the “maximum”?

Line 260. What is a “short wave” How defined here?

Line 269.  “…resulted from wave breaking”  Not clear what is meant here? What’s the process?

Line 283.  Why “therefore…” How does it follow?

Line 289. Why “steady”?  Meaning persistent?

Line 323-335. The Stokes drift is offshore? What is the physical interpretation of the differences in these parameters? What is the reader to take from this paragraph? How should these parameters be chosen?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see items above

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

after implementing the requirements of the first review, I consider the paper ready for publication