Cnoidal Wave-Induced Residual Liquefaction in Loosely Deposited Seabed under Coastal Shallow Water
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled "Cnoidal Wave-Induced Residual Liquefaction in Loosely Deposited Seabed under Coastal Shallow Water" is an interesting research based on a numerically investigation on the cnoidal wave-induced dynamics characteristics and the liquefaction process in a loosely deposited seabed floor in a shallow water environment.
- The paper can be published after some corrections.
- Page 1, Line 24: Stokoe's name should be capitalized.
- Page 5, Line 187: “Zienkiewicz et al. (1999)” Insert “[21]”.
- Page 6, Line 199: “Yang and Ye (2018)” insert “[12]”. “Zhang et al. (2019)” is absent in the References.
- Page 11, Line 339: “Yang and Ye (2018)” insert “[12]”.
- Page 11, Line 350: “Wu et al. (2004)” insert “[27]”.
- Page 11, Line 352: “Ye et al. (2015)” insert “[28]”.
- Page 13, Line 406 and 409: Stokoe's name should be capitalized
- Introduction: Insert more details about liquefaction phenomena. For example considering the following paper:
-- Cavallaro A., Capilleri P. and Grasso S., (2018): "Site Characterization by in Situ and Laboratory Tests for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation during Emilia Romagna Earthquake"; Geosciences, Special Issue: "Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analysis: New Perspectives, Open Issues and Challenges", Geosciences 2018, 8(7), 242, pp. 1 - 15. (ISSN: 2076-3263) DOI:10.3390/geosciences8070242.
-- Idriss, I.M.; Boulanger, R.W. "Semi-empirical Procedures for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential during Earthquakes"; In Proceedings of the 11th IC SDEE/3rd ICEGE Proceedings, Berkeley, CA, USA, 7 - 9 January 2004; Volume 1, pp. 32 - 56.
-- Idriss, I.M. "An Update to the Seed-Idriss Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential"; In Proceedings of the TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, Washington, DC, USA, 10 January 1999.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1: 1) Page 1, Line 24: Stokoe's name should be capitalized. 2) Page 5, Line 187: “Zienkiewicz et al. (1999)” Insert “[21]”. 3) Page 6, Line 199: “Yang and Ye (2018)” insert “[12]”. “Zhang et al. (2019)” is absent in the References. 4) Page 11, Line 339: “Yang and Ye (2018)” insert “[12]”. 5) Page 11, Line 350: “Wu et al. (2004)” insert “[27]”. 6) Page 11, Line 352: “Ye et al. (2015)” insert “[28]”. 7) Page 13, Line 406 and 409: Stokoe's name should be capitalized. Response: Thanks for reminding us on these problems. We have revised the the problems mentioned above. And “Zhang et al. (2019) [32]” is added to the References. Labelled as blue color in the revised manuscript. References 32. Y Zhang, J Ye, K He, S Chen, 2019. Seismic Dynamics of Pipeline Buried in Dense Seabed Foundation. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 7 (6), 190. Pub Date : 2019-06-20. DOI:10.3390/jmse7060190. 8) Introduction: Insert more details about liquefaction phenomena. For example considering the following paper: - Cavallaro A., Capilleri P. and Grasso S., (2018): "Site Characterization by in Situ and Laboratory Tests for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation during Emilia Romagna Earthquake"; Geosciences, Special Issue: "Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analysis: New Perspectives, Open Issues and Challenges", Geosciences 2018, 8(7), 242, pp. 1 - 15. (ISSN: 2076-3263) DOI:10.3390/geosciences8070242. - Idriss, I.M.; Boulanger, R.W. "Semi-empirical Procedures for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential during Earthquakes"; In Proceedings of the 11th IC SDEE/3rd ICEGE Proceedings, Berkeley, CA, USA, 7 - 9 January 2004; Volume 1, pp. 32 - 56. - Idriss, I.M. "An Update to the Seed-Idriss Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential"; In Proceedings of the TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, Washington, DC, USA, 10 January 1999. Response: As suggested by this reviewer, the works and contributions conducted by Cavallaro A. et al.(2018) and Idriss I.M. et al. (2004) have been included in the revised manuscript. Please see that on Page 1,Line 40-42. Another article could not be cited in the article due to search privileges.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Throughout the manuscript, there are a lot of minor but important editorial issues, including English wording and sentence grammar. This makes it extremely difficult for the reader to understand the meaning of each section, ultimately an unnecessary distraction from the technical review. The authors are requested to take extra care with proofreading the revised manuscript.
Overall, the manuscript can benefit from further proofreading and additional statistical analysis. My specific comments are provided below which the authors may consider before publication:
Abstract – The authors should add one or two sentences at the end of the abstract to indicate how the findings can contribute to academic and practice communities.
L35-37 – Please carefully check this sentence, I don’t agree with this comment! It could be one of the reasons for the failure of vertical breakwaters but not the main reason for the failure of the breakwaters.
Introduction – In the introduction section, you should give the novelty and the contributions of your works. The literature review is poor in this paper. Authors must review all significant similar works that have been done. Also, English should be improved, in particular describing the previous works.
References – Authors did not follow the correct referencing style throughout the manuscript.
Results and Discussion – Authors are encouraged to include the error analysis of the developed models.
Figure 12 – Wave height = 4m at d = 8.0 m? Is it significant wave height? What does d mean here?
The authors need to interpret the meanings of the variables.
Conclusions – This section needs to rewrite completely. A brief discussion on the limitations of the study and the future research that needs to be carried out in this regard may improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
1) Abstract – The authors should add one or two sentences at the end of the abstract to indicate how the findings can contribute to academic and practice communities.
Response: As suggested by this reviewer, we have added the statement about significance and contribution of this article in the revised manuscript.Please see Page 1, Line 24-26.
2) L35-37 – Please carefully check this sentence, I don’t agree with this comment! It could be one of the reasons for the failure of vertical breakwaters but not the main reason for the failure of the breakwaters.
Response: We agree with your opinion. In the revised manuscript we have changed the statement from “ the main factor ” to “ one of the factors ”.Please see Page 1,Line 39.
3) Introduction – In the introduction section, you should give the novelty and the contributions of your works. The literature review is poor in this paper. Authors must review all significant similar works that have been done. Also, English should be improved, in particular describing the previous works.
Response: Thanks for pointing out this problem. The novelty and the contributions mentioned above have been added by us in the introduction section, as shown on Page 2, Lines 79-81.
There are many studies on the dynamic response of the seabed under the waves, with no less than 100 literatures. However, the focus of this article is the liquefaction in loosely deposited seabed under the cnoidal wave. Besides, we have included all the literatures on the dynamic response of the seabed under the cnoidal wave for nearly 20 years. Because this article is not a review article, it is not suitable to include all the literatures on the dynamic response of the seabed.
We have done our best to improve the English writing. All inappropriate expression, statement and grammar mistakes we can find have been corrected.
4) References – Authors did not follow the correct referencing style throughout the manuscript.
Response: Thanks you for reminding us on this point. The format of literature citations in the manuscript has been revised as required.
5) Results and Discussion – Authors are encouraged to include the error analysis of the developed models.
Response: Thanks for pointing out the problem. In this study, the integrated numerical model FSSI-CAS 2D developed by Ye et al. (2013) [18] and Jeng et al. (2013) [19] is utilized as the computational platform. The error analysis of the model should be proved by the developer, we only apply some of the computational and numerical simulation functions of the model as a user. In addition, it had been clarified that the model is highly reliable. Please see Page 2-4, Line 82-141.
References
- Ye, J.H., Jeng, D.-S., Wang, R., Zhu, C.-Q., 2013. Validation of a 2D semi-coupled numerical model for Fluid-Structures-Seabed Interaction. J. Fluids Struct. 42, 333–357.
- Jeng D S, Ye J H, Zhang J S, Liu PLF, 2013. An integrated model for the wave-induced seabed response around marine structures: Model verifications and applications. Coastal Engineering 72, 1-19.
6) Figure 12 – Wave height = 4m at d = 8.0 m? Is it significant wave height? What does d mean here? The authors need to interpret the meanings of the variables.
Response: Thanks for your question. H is the wave height of cnoidal wave. It is not significant wave height. Where d is the water depth. As suggested by this reviewer, the authors have checked that all variables are interpreted the meanings in the article.
7) Conclusions – This section needs to rewrite completely. A brief discussion on the limitations of the study and the future research that needs to be carried out in this regard may improve the quality of the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for pointing out the problem. But we cannot fully understand reviewer’s meaning because there is no specific problem pointed out by this reviewer. We have checked the statement in the conclusion section. In our opinion, the conclusions are appropriate.
The statement about the limitations and the future research have been supplemented in the article.Please see Page 14, Line 450-452.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors for incorporating my comments. The only comment I have now is please rewrite your statement that has been added in the revised manuscript Page 14, Line 450-452.
Author Response
1) Thanks to the authors for incorporating my comments. The only comment I have now is please rewrite your statement that has been added in the revised manuscript Page 14, Line 450-452.
Response: Thank this reviewer for reminding this point. The statement about the limitations and the future research have been supplemented and revised in the article.Please see “Conclusions (4)”.
As suggested by this reviewer, we have done our best to improve the English writing. All inappropriate expression, statement and grammar mistakes we can find have been corrected.The revisions are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
