A Composite Permeable Sloping Seawall for Effective Energy Dissipation: A Quasi-Soft Alternative Solution for Shore Protection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article touches an interesting topic about coastal protection. The authors carried out comprehensive flume experiments on the effect of permeability of the composite armor and how the slope affects the performance of a seawall structure. The results contribute to the further understanding of the characteristics of such composite armor. I have several comments and questions as can be found in the followings, to which I recommend the authors pay due considerations and revise the manuscript accordingly.
1. Regular waves are used in this test. Why do not the time histories of free surface elevations in Figure 6 conform to the characteristics of regular waves?
2. The water depth D is 30cm, as shown in Table 1. However, there is a wave elevation with a value of more than 50cm when the slope is 1:2. This is incomprehensible.
3. In Figure 15, the slope is suggested to be marked as 1:1.5,1:2.0,1:2.5. Please explain when the slope is 1:1.5, why is there no C_C in the first group of working conditions? When the slope is 1:2, why are there only two sets of working condition data in the figure? When the slope is 1:2.5, why is there no SB_C in the latter two working conditions?
4. The picture is not clear enough, such as Figure 1 and 3. The size should be uniform in a picture, such as Figure 6 and 16.
5. It is recommended to sort the pictures uniformly according to the gradient of the slope in Figure 6. The same problem appears in Figure 16. It is recommended to sort according to the wave period. In Figure 18, it is recommended to sort according to the slope of armor.
6. Please unify the significant digits of the ordinates in Figure 6 and 8-10.
7. Characters expressing variables in the full text should be in italics, please check and modify carefully.
8. Line 284, please check whether it is Table 4 or Table 5? Line 521, slope expression error, please check.
9. The characters representing the same variable in the manuscript should be the same. However, wave steepness is represented as h/l in equation 4, and H/L can be found in Table 6. “?????? and ????”. “sec and Sec” in Figure 6. Equation 5 on line 384 and Eq.8 on line 493. It is recommended to check the full text and modify it.
10. Please add appropriate legend in the figure. Does the dotted line in Figure 13 represent the fitting curve of this test? What are the dots and solid lines in Figure 14 respectively? Please mark in the legend. In addition, the expression of slopes is also not uniform in Figure 13, such as 1 in 2.5 and 1:1.5.
11. In Figure 14, The results of C_C show a downward trend, so the expression on line 369 in the manuscript is inappropriate, just as “As seen in Figure 14, The Kr values exhibit an increasing trend 369 with an increase in actual values”.
12. 15. Carefully check the format of references, such as references [17], [19], [20].
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our Manuscript. Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research is nice. The writing is standardized. It is worthy of acceptance for publication.
Of course, there are many shortcomings in the manuscript.
But the paper must be properly revised.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our Manuscript. Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Please correct the language duplication in the literature 19. Check the consistency of letter case in refs 21 and 22.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for pointing out the inconsistancy. The reference list is completly relooked and corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
Some errors need to be remodified.
Tha paper can be accepted after modification strictly according to the suggestion.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
