2D Numerical Simulation of Floods in Ebro River and Analysis of Boundary Conditions to Model the Mequinenza Reservoir Dam
, Isabel Echeverribar 2,*,†, Juan Mairal 1,†, Sergio Martínez-Aranda 1,†, Javier Fernández-Pato 2,† and Pilar García-Navarro 1,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study analyses different strategies related to the computational grid and the reservoir at the downstream boundary. I think this study is interesting and well written. Although the study does not contain many innovations and focuses on technical aspects of flood modelling, I think it contains enough original contributions that can be useful to the scientific community.
I have only a few minor comments and suggestions for the authors.
1. The introduction lacks a brief overview of different strategies for reservoir and dam boundary conditions (a few lines after line 63)
2. Figure 2: The scale is not visible in the figure, please enlarge.
3. Equation (12): how are the eigenvalues calculated?
4. Line 88: "...the computational grid leads to..."
5. Line 111: What about the infiltration? Does it affect the results (flood propagation) outside the main channel.
6. Figure 7: "Elevation [m]" in the legend
7. Line 132: Add reference to the IGN website.
8. Line 151: remove the '-' after roughness.
9. Line 178: "rating curve" is a more common term. Many studies also use the water level hydrograph as a downstream condition.
10. Section 4.1. what is the range of cell size in scenarios M1 and M2. Perhaps a histogram comparison should be shown.
11. Figure 17 and 18: Replace the figures (Figure 17 should be discharge and Figure 18 should be water level).
12. Figure 17 and 18: What does CHE stand for in the legend? I assume it is the measured values, perhaps "Measured" would be clearer than "CHE".
13. Figure 17 and 18: It would be informative if the results of the M1 were also shown.
14. Figure 20 - 24: Please add more information in the legend or caption, what is h+z BC, what is CHE? A short description would be helpful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This work presents a GPU accelerated 2D shallow water model for the simulation of flood events in real time, which achieved good fitting result. The numerical model and case are well described. The conclusions obtained have a certain value to related research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presented by the authors describes an approach to optimize elevation model mapping for a reservoir in Spain, using data from LIDAR and bottom profiling. The reviewer suggests that while the manuscript is not contradictory to current understanding, it lacks novelty and does not clearly emphasize its relevance.
The reviewer notes that the stitching of data from different sources and representation as a meshed surface are standard techniques used in CAD. The only new information presented in the manuscript is related to the number of hours required depending on the number of nodes, which the reviewer suggests is more educational than academic.
The reviewer highlights some important aspects that the authors missed in their manuscript. For instance, the manuscript does not discuss how the LIDAR data was cleaned up or the boundaries of the flood zones as a function of costs. These are important details that would help readers understand the research methodology and make informed decisions.
To improve the manuscript, the reviewer suggests that the authors clearly emphasize the novelty and relevance of their study. Additionally, the authors should explain how their proposed approach is better than the classical representation of the model in the form of a regular grid, which is more suitable for hydrological modeling in GIS. The reviewer recommends that the authors provide an extrapolation of their results to other areas where their approach could be useful.
The reviewer also points out a fact-checking issue with the manuscript. Specifically, the reviewer notes that the statement in line 119 that LIDAR sensors are not able to penetrate below the water surface is not entirely true, as there are LIDAR sensors designed for underwater scanning.
Overall, the manuscript needs significant improvements before it can be recommended for publication in its current form. The authors should address the reviewer's comments and provide a more detailed and novel account of their research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
