Investigation of Tsunami Waves in a Wave Flume: Experiment, Theory, Numerical Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

your study "Investigation of tsunami waves in a wave flume: experiment theory, numerical modeling" is a well-written and nice contribution to this field. 

I have some suggestions for you:

1. The introduction is good, but I think it would be great to add a literary review part and to add a broader review of the previous study related to your subject;
2. Please, add more limitations of your study in the discussion or conclusion part;
3. Paper [21] shows that the use of high-precision  - it's better to write names of authors...;
4. Write some scientific and social implications of your research;

Thank you for your paper.

Kind regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

This paper is a review paper on the importance of theoretical studies, hydraulic experiments and basic studies using numerical calculations in tsunami countermeasures. I would like to make a few comments below and hope you will consider revising it.

1. What kind of resistive sensor? Is it a type of pressure sensor? Please explain in more detail to the extent possible.
2. What part of the description of L210-211 in the manuscript does the reader need to refer to understand?
3. Please include the legend for Figure 7 and 8 in the caption.
4. What part of the description of L271-273 in the manuscript does the reader need to refer to understand?
5. Reader can't find a description of condition for the computation result in Fig. 9, so please add it.
6. For the structures in Fig. 10, what exactly are the No. 1 and No. 2 structures supposed to be? For example, are structures No.1 and No.2 assumed to be submerged breakwater and sluce gate, respectively? It would enhance the worth of this review paper if it were also shown in what situations it could be applied in practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this study, the author demonstrates that a barrier submerged under a tall tsunami wave can dissipate up to 2/3 of the wave energy, if a certain condition among the barrier height, the wave height, and the depth is met.  Under that condition, as shown in the paper, a vortex forms behind the barrier, which is responsible for draining the wave energy. The paper findings are supported with a laboratory experiment and with numerical modeling. The paper reads well (skipping minor English flaws which do not obscure meaning), and appears sound until 6.2. Theoretical studies.

The “theory” in section 6.2 is more than questionable. For instance, I doubt that (10) is the correct formulation of “the conditions for the conservation of stationary flows of mass”: the “mass” does not move with the wave celerity c. Moreover, is the flow “stationary”, or is it a wave? Borda-Carnot principle applies to stationary flows, whereas equating kinetic and potential components of the flow energy applies only to harmonic waves, after averaging over the wave period. For the equations in lines 449 and 453 to be valid, U and v_t must be speeds of a stationary flow, but for the 2nd equation in the line 453 to make sense, (v_t)² must refer to the average squared flow speed in a harmonic wave.

I can’t recommend this “theory” for publication, and suggest to remove it. If the author insists on keeping it, I would request that

(1) the author show the derivation of his equation (10) from the exact mass conservation equation of the “shallow-water theory” (partial derivative of the flow depth with respect to t plus partial derivative of the flow depth times flow speed with respect to x equals zero); and

(2) the author should be clear about whether the variables refer to instant or averaged over the wave period flow parameters, and use different notations for instant and average variables.

I can recommend the manuscript to publication w/o section 6.2 though. 

Minor comments:

1. Any chance that the author intended to, but forgot to insert a couple of formulas after line 152?

2. line 171: If A ranged from 0.5 mm to 15 mm, and H was 100+ mm, then A/H<0.15, not 0.25.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your improvements.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your feedback, understanding and rating.

B. Boshenyatov

Reviewer 3 Report

After reading the 1st version of the paper, I requested two clarifications in section 6.2: I asked to show derivation of equation (10), and to clarify the flow type as stationary vs oscillatory. The latter is done in the revised version: the author has specified that the tsunami wave under consideration is considered a bore, and as such, it is characterized by a constant height, flow speed, and celerity. However, justification for equation (10) as “the condition for the conservation of stationary flows of mass” is still absent. Given, that this equation is not known in the available literature, I think it is fair to request its derivation. I hope, the author can add the detailed derivation of (10) within a minor revision. Note that 'Ac' in (10) is not the “flow of mass”, because “mass” does not move with the wave celerity c.

Minor comments:

line 253: tipical (typical, also in line 371)

line 328: of two type[s] (and no dot needed before (Figure 10))

line 335,336: better use ‘varied’ instead of ‘changed’

line 371: tsunami-tipe

would be good to add colorscale to Fig.13

Author Response

Thank you for carefully reading my manuscript. All your corrections and recommendations (except for 5) are taken into account in the edited text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx