diff --git a/nature/fig/maxw.pdf b/nature/fig/maxw.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..07c2bd4
Binary files /dev/null and b/nature/fig/maxw.pdf differ
diff --git a/nature/fig/out_orbitals.pdf b/nature/fig/out_orbitals.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2ef9811
Binary files /dev/null and b/nature/fig/out_orbitals.pdf differ
diff --git a/nature/fig/ts.pdf b/nature/fig/ts.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..953f5ff
Binary files /dev/null and b/nature/fig/ts.pdf differ
diff --git a/nature/main.tex b/nature/main.tex
index 426b0ab..088c5e0 100644
--- a/nature/main.tex
+++ b/nature/main.tex
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 \documentclass[a4paper, twocolumn]{article}
 \usepackage{polyglossia} \usepackage{authblk}
 \usepackage[sfdefault]{inter}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
 
 \setmainlanguage{english}
 
@@ -74,8 +75,41 @@ calibrated using photographs from the storm of February 28, 2017. Results from t
 to the analytical equations provided by \textcite{nandasena2011}.
 
 \section{Results}
+\subsection{Identified wave}
+
+Preliminary work with the photographer allowed to identify the time at which the block displacement event happened.
+Using the data from the wave buoy located 1250m offshore of the Artha breakwater, a seamingly abnormally large wave of
+14m amplitude was identified that is supposed to have lead to the block displacement.
+
+Initial analysis of the buoy data plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:wave} shows that the movement of the buoy follows two
+orbitals that correspond to an incident wave direction. These results would indicate that the identified wave is
+essentially an incident wave, with a minor reflected component.
+
+\begin{figure*}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{fig/ts.pdf}
+	\includegraphics{fig/out_orbitals.pdf}
+	\caption{\textit{Left}: Free surface measured during the extreme wave measured on February 28, 2017 at 17:23UTC.
+	\textit{Right}: Trajectory of the wave buoy during the passage of this particular wave.}\label{fig:wave}
+\end{figure*}
+
 \subsection{Reflection analysis}
 
+The results from the large scale SWASH model using two configurations --- one of them being the real bathymetry, and
+the other being a simplified bathymetry without the breakwater --- are compared in Figure~\ref{fig:swash}. The results
+obtained with both simulations show a maximum wave amplitude of 13.9m for the real bathymetry, and 12.1m in the case
+where the breakwater is removed.
+
+The 13\% difference between those values highlights the existence of a notable amount of reflection at the buoy.
+Nonetheless, the gap between the values is still fairly small and the extreme wave identified on February 28, 2017 at
+17:23:08 could still be considered as an incident wave.
+
+\begin{figure*}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics{fig/maxw.pdf}
+	\caption{Free surface obtained with the SWASH model in two configurations. \textit{Case 1}: With breakwater;
+	\textit{Case 2}: Without breakwater.}\label{fig:swash}
+\end{figure*}
 
 \section{Discussion}