Rip current evidence by hydrodynamic simulations, bathymetric surveys and UAV observation

Benassai, Guido; Aucelli, Pietro; Budillon, Giorgio; De Stefano, Massimo; Di Luccio, Diana; Di Paola, Gianluigi; Montella, Raffaele; Mucerino, Luigi; Sica, Mario; Pennetta, Micla

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1493-2017

Articles | Volume 17, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1493-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

The use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) in monitoring...

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1493-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 9

Research article

|

12 Sep 2017

Research article |

| 12 Sep 2017

Rip current evidence by hydrodynamic simulations, bathymetric surveys and UAV observation

Guido Benassai, Pietro Aucelli, Giorgio Budillon, Massimo De Stefano, Diana Di Luccio, Gianluigi Di Paola, Raffaele Montella, Luigi Mucerino, Mario Sica, and Micla Pennetta

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Sep 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 03 Mar 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Mar 2017
- AC1: 'Answer to anonymous referree #1', Guido Benassai, 27 Mar 2017
  - EC1: 'Revision still needed', F. Nex, 03 Apr 2017
RC2: 'Manuscript review', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Mar 2017
RC3: 'Interesting research, improvements needed', Anonymous Referee #3, 03 Apr 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (07 May 2017) by Francesco Nex

AR by Guido Benassai on behalf of the Authors (12 May 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 May 2017) by Francesco Nex

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (30 May 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

With respect to the previous review round, the authors have replied and addressed to some of my comments while others comments/suggestions have not been considered. The revised/added text has improved the overall quality of the manuscript which still I consider very interesting, nevertheless important aspects have not been addressed.
For the sake of clarity, I still recommended to provide a more comprehensive literature review in the introduction/motivation, in particular to highlight if and how the problem is dealt with, which technology is used, and if/where/how the authors are now filling a missing gap. Two references have been added and cited (one was suggested by me) but still the methods used for the investigation are not clear.
The surveying techniques have now been better explained, still I would recommend to state which physical quantities the authors are looking for and provide typical range for them (i.e. amplitude of seafloor depth variations in the order of XX cm? Which geometric resolution is necessary for the DTM?) Which data and outcomes are the authors willing to draw from both satellite and UAV images (Orthophoto, 3D point cloud, orientation or particular pattern distributions in the aerial views)?
Regarding the use of RPAS, I suggest you to use only RPAs or UAV (i.e. line 27 pag 2) as it may confuse the reader. Also, I suggest the authors to check and modify the text where they talk about Google Earth images as they are not techniques but products (orthophoto).
Please also consider that RPAS are nowadays used for several different tasks and thus do not use UAV survey as it may be meaningless. The authors should specify what kind of technique was used and output produced (i.e. photogrammetry, orthophoto?). The authors cited the use of some targets surveyed with GNSS positioning techniques to georeferenced the images, how did they do that (undostortion + rectification, orthophoto projection)?

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (16 Jun 2017)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by Editor) (22 Jun 2017) by Francesco Nex

AR by Guido Benassai on behalf of the Authors (01 Jul 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by Editor) (19 Jul 2017) by Francesco Nex

AR by Guido Benassai on behalf of the Authors (27 Jul 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (30 Jul 2017) by Francesco Nex

AR by Guido Benassai on behalf of the Authors (02 Aug 2017) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The study of the shallow coastal area of the Sele mouth in the Gulf of Salerno (southern Italy) identified the features of nearshore circulation, which often produced rip currents. The occurrence of a rip current cell circulation in restricted ranges of heights, periods and incident directions was related to the non-dimensional fall velocity parameter, which proved to be an efficient index for rip current formation.