Numerical Simulation of the Beach Response Mechanism under Typhoon Lekima: A Case Study of the Southern Beach of Chudao
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work is very interesting and worth to be published. My comments only minor as follow:
The study discusses the beach profile evolution during one specific typhoon event. The authors need to elaborate more.
The authors used The XBeach numerical model as tool for predicting the response of sandy coasts to typhoons. The authors are encouraged to highlight the advantages of this model compared to other models in literature. For example, recently many researchers using AI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-023-09934-9 and https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09716-9.
Last statement in the Introduction section is not clear. The authors are encouraged to improve it by clarifying it.
Fig .1 The tracking of typhoon "Lekima's" path: If there is better figure than this one, it is highly encouraged to replace it.
Please check the equations.
In the introduction the authors are encouraged to explain more about the sediment: The authors can refer to : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-021-00689-0 .
Fig .10 Changes in beach cross-sections at four moments: Not clear, please improve the quality.
Conclusion: Needs to be refine and highlight the limitations of the current work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents the results of a numerical study conducted to simulate the beach response under the dynamic conditions of a typhoon. Specifically, the case study of the southern beach of Chudao in China was considered.
In its present form, the manuscript has several problems. First, the outline of the paper needs improvement and the methodology is not adequately explained. The manuscript is also very difficult to read and follows long sentences and repetitive content. In general, the authors very often use non-standard English that could be significantly improved. A revision by a native English speaker is strongly recommended.
Introduction:
The state-of-the-art needs improvement. References are incomplete and omit other important contributions. There are many papers worth mentioning in this field, particularly dealing with the morphodynamics of beach-dune systems.
Lines 58-61. As a representative case, this is an example of sentences that are difficult to understand. Please rephrase.
Lines 85-88. See the comment above.
2.2.1 Overview of Beach Model:
Eq. (2) is incorrect. Please check it.
2.2.3 Model Grid Setup:
This section has the same title as section 2.2.2
3.3 Beach Dynamic Response Status:
Lines 313-316. To clarify this aspect, it is useful to add a table.
Discussion:
Lines 434-437. This is a representative example of sentences that are difficult to understand. Please rephrase.
Conclusions:
Lines 466-467. See the comment above.
References:
The authors do not use the correct referencing system.
Overall, I do not consider the study ready for publication. I suggest that the authors rewrite the manuscript to conform to the journal structure standard, revise the English language, correct the referencing system, and most importantly revise the methodological approach, simplify and clarify the presentation of results, discussion, and conclusions. My suggestion is therefore: major revision.
Suggested references that should be considered:
van Gent, M.R.A., van Thiel de Vries, J.S.M., Coeveld, E.M., de Vroeg, J.H., van de Graaff, J., 2008. Large-scale dune erosion tests to study the influence of wave periods. Coast. Eng., 55, 1041–1051.
van Thiel de Vries, J.S.M., van Gent, M.R.A.,Walstra, D.J.R., Reniers, A.J.H.M., 2008. Analysis of dune erosion processes in large-scale flume experiments. Coast. Eng., 55, 1028–1040.
D’Alessandro, F., Tomasicchio, G.R. (2016). Wave-dune interaction and beach resilience in large-scale physical model tests. Coast. Eng., 116, 15-25.
The manuscript is very difficult to read and follows long sentences and repetitive content. In general, the authors very often use non-standard English that could be significantly improved. A revision by a native English speaker is strongly recommended.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study seems more like an application of the XBeach model rather than a research article. The Authors mention in the Conclusions that
L484-486: This study helps researchers understand the impact of typhoons on beach topography and provides useful references for human society’s protection and management of beaches.
but I cannot understand what the innovative part is. Neither is anything written in the Introduction. A validation of XBeach and the analysis of its results do not seem enough for a publication in JMSE. Based on the above, I have to reject it. In any case, some mistakes that I have found reading the article are listed below.
1. I think it is longshore sediment transport rather than alongshore.
2. L67-72, delete this sentence.
3. L72-73, rephrase.
4. L94, what does this mean (high-quality sandy coast)?
5. L11, what does this mean (stopped numbering)?
6. Fig. 2, The sea should be blue and not the land. Describe P1, P2 etc. in the caption. In Fig. 5, section no 1, 3, 5 refers to P1, P3, P5?
7. Decide if you want a full stop at the Fig captions or not and be consistent.
8. The definition of the variables after an equation is not a reason to start a new paragraph.
9. D50 etc. must be written D50.
10. L309, provide a reference for the formulas.
11. L312, the font size must be the same throughout the whole manuscript.
12. L377, cm3 and not cm3.
13. L441-444, rephrase!
14. L466, delete conclusion.
15. L475, tidal zone.
16. L476, sand source?
Extensive editing of English language required. Some mistakes are written in my list.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer appreciated the authors' work and recommend the publication of the paper, which can be accepted in its current form.
Moderate editing of English language is suggested.
Author Response
Comment 1: Suggest moderate editing of the English
Response 1: The latest revised version of this article has made modifications and expansions to the abstract, introduction, modeling methods, results, conclusions, and other sections. In addition, vocabulary and grammar were checked.
Thank you again for taking the time out of your busy schedule to provide professional comments on this article!
Reviewer 3 Report
XBeach (DHI MIKE, Delft3D, OpenFOAM, TELEMAC-MASCARET, to name a few) are established models to simulate wave-induced beach responses etc. Simulating a real case with these models do not produce an article for publication, if someone has not investigated something specifically. The Authors present only a validation for beach profile (1D) evolution after the Typhoon. In their results, they present water levels, wave heights, run-up, beach profile evolution, 2D coastal morphodynamic change and flow field distribution. Apart, for the beach profile evolution, how can a reader trust all the other results? Moreover, the description of the presented results is very basic. What is the innovation of their article? What will a reader learn?
Finally, Figs. 11 and 12 have very bad resolution. Furthermore, why is the surface of Figs. 11 and 12 different? Where exactly is this place in Fig. 2? Fig. 12 matches with Fig. 4, but Fig. 11, not. This is an example that this article is not well written.
Moderate editing of English language
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
