Testing of an Optimization-Simulation Model for Real-Time Flood Operation of River-Reservoir Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
This paper presents an optimization-simulation model developed and tested on a hypothetic case study to determine the optimal operation of gates.
The topics presented in this paper are of interest to the readership of this journal. However, the introduction should be deepened by providing examples and references on flood events and their consequences. The results section also needs to be deepened in terms of results discussion and in their illustration through the figures. The latter in particular should be significantly improved.
The article should be modified taking into account the suggestions indicated below.
Detailed comments
- Introduction
There are no bibliographic references and examples on case studies relating to the flood phenomena and to its consequences.
- Previous Optimization/Simulation Models for Real-Time Flood Control Operation
- Line 54 add comma → as one of the purposes, as reviewed in detail by Che and Mays (2015).
- Line 60: The approach discussed in this paper is such an operation model. → Further details should be provided on the innovative elements of the model developed in this paper and those mentioned in this section. This information may be added in this section or in section 3.
- Model Formulation
- Lines 81-86: In spite of the scheme shown in Figure 2, the structure of the model is not explained clearly enough. More details should be given in the text.
- Line 83 NEXRAD → it would be appropriate to define the acronym NEXRAD and how and what type of data it provides (e.g. on an hourly, daily basis, etc...)
- Figure 2 → check the image resolution, it looks very low (Also for Figure 1)
- Lines 89-95: Meteorological and stream/discharge data → Are meteorological data related exclusively on rainfall? Or refer to multiple parameters (e.g. pressure and wind)? If they refer only to rainfall, it would be appropriate to talk about rainfall data and not meteorological data in general. Moreover, is the data available on an hourly, every 30-minute or daily basis? This information should be specified.
- Lines 96-98: In many cases, ... is more appropriate → Could you provide examples and references to these statements?
- Lines 99-100: Usually, modeling flow in a network of channels can be per-99 formed using one-dimensional modeling. → Like above, could you provide examples and references to these statements?
- Example Application
- Lines 172-177: A hypothetical example application, referred to as the Muncie Project (for Muncie, 172 Indiana) → Could you provide more information on the case study?
- Lines 178-180: A hypothetical example application, referred to as the Muncie Project (for Muncie, 172 Indiana) → Despite this, is the case study located in an affected by flood events?
- Figure 3 should also be improved, it is advisable to report a more detailed map, with a smaller map that indicates the location of the case study on the entire length of White River in Indiana and a larger map of the interested area with the hypothetical storage area. The use of GIS-based software, also for the illustration of Figures 4, 5, 7 and 8, is recommended.
- Figure 4. One-Dimensional (1-D) River Reach with Cross-sections. → In some sections (e.g. 13214.80) it would appear that the levees in HEC-RAS have not been inserted correctly. It would be worth checking
- Line 187: the one-dimensional flow modeling approach has only been mentions. A brief description of this modeling is missing.
- Figures 5 and 6 would need to be redone, they have a very low quality. Among the others, the x and y axes must be reviewed both in terms of size and font type.
- It seems that Figures 7 and 8 reports the inundation area on the digital elevation model implemented in HEC-RAS. It would be appropriate to represent a color bar for the elevation.
- A second color bar, related to the water depth, should be provided for Figures 4, 7 and 8.
- It should be interesting to reports also the inundation area on a satellite image, in order to provide further details on the results obtained, highlighting the differences between flooded and non-flooded areas.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 does provide suggestions for improvement which I have addressed as follows:
Introduction does provide sufficient background and relevant references are provided in the second section titled Previous Optimization/Simulation models for... I have included a large paragraph providing info on an actual flood on the Cumberland River in May 2010 that flooded Nashville and surrounding areas. this is an excellent example of where this type of modeling can be applied in a real-time fashion for determining optimal gate operations to lesson flooding.
Additional text has been added to adequately describe the methods, especially model formulation section 3 has been expanded to describe the model structure as shown in Figure 2.
Section 3.2 on unsteady flow simulation has been expanded to better define the methods of 1D and 2D, and the combined 1D/2D, and the advantages of each, especially the combined approach. No detailed description of these methods will be made in the paper as these are readily available in Corp documents and several textbooks.
I feel the results of the example application are now properly described. I have added an new reference by Brunner that does provide detail of the Muncie example that should clarify the application. This reference provides in detail the modeling using the HEC-RAS model of the Muncie location. And yes the area is subject to flooding and the combined 1D/2D unsteady modeling is recommended as the approach.
Reviewer 1 needs to explain the comment ""it would appear that the levees in HEC-RAS have not been inserted correctly." Reviewer apparently makes this comment based upon looking at Figure 4. This is an founded comment.
Reviewer 1 comments that a brief description of the one-dimensional modeling should be provided. That will not be done as readers of this article should have that knowledge. That would be like saying I should give a description of genetic algorithms, nonlinear programming, optimal control, rainfall runoff modeling, etc.
Reviewer 1 makes a good comment that we should provide a color bar for the terrain, which I have done. Also he suggests a color bar for the depth which I have not done as this detail is unnecessary because all I want to get across is that the darker the blue the deeper the water.
The suggestion that "reporting the inundation area on a satellite image .... highlighting the differences between flooded and non-flooded areas." This might be interesting especially if were done as a function of time as the flood progresses through the area. This however will not be done.
We feel that all figures are of high enough resolution for this paper.
Reviewer 1 thanks for your time and suggestions on improving the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The title of this paper is “Testing of an Optimization/Simulation Model for Real-Time Flood Operation of River-Reservoir Systems”. The title of this paper is interesting. However, there is a lot of questions for contents in this paper. Therefore, I recommend a major revision in this paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2 states that "the paper is interesting. However there is a lot of questions for contents in this paper." Reviewer does not provide any questions so it is impossible to respond to this reviewer or to make changes to the paper based upon no questions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 3 provides no comments on how to change the paper, so I have no idea of what the reviewer wants. Reviewer has two items that must be improved. Yes the introduction has been changed to provide sufficient background and does include all references.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has certainly been improved in the discussion of the methodology and results. However, the level of detail of the figures is still poor. The Authors should further improve the representation of the results. In particular:
- Figure 1 was taken from a previous work
"Che (2015). Optimization / Simulation Model for Determining Real-Time Optimal Operation of River-Reservoirs Systems during Flooding Conditions: Figure 1.1: Schematic of a River-Reservoir System”
it is appropriate to mention it
- Figure 3 should also be improved. “Storsge Area” should be corrected with “Storage Area”. it is advisable to report a more detailed map, without the low resolution indication of the streets. A high resolution satellite image should be used as a layer. It seems to me that the image was taken from HEC-RAS with the Windows snipping tool.
- Figure 4: Please, add a color bar for the water depth. The caption does not provide enough information.
- As reported in the previous review, figures 5 and 6 would need to be redone, they have a very low detail (font style and size, axes, ecc…). I recommend taking inspiration from other papers in Water to improve the representation of these figures.
- Also Figures 7 and 8 seem captured from the RAS Mapper of HEC-RAS with the Windows snipping tool. I believe these images are not adequate for a research paper. By exporting the layers in a GIS-based software, as an example, a much clearer representation should be obtained.
Author Response
I think we have incorporated all the changes recommended by this reviewer successfully.
I addressed the literature survey in my responses to the other reviewer above.
I feel that your comments have helped to complement the study and I thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
The title of this paper is “Testing of an Optimization/Simulation Model for Real-Time Flood Operation of River-Reservoir Systems”. It is believed that the authors did not check up uploaded files. There is a lot of questions for contents in this paper. Therefore, I recommend a major revision in this paper.
1. Various literature survey on real-time control (RTC) of reservoirs is required.
2. Authors mentioned “optimization-simulation”. However, “Optimization/Simulation” was used in title. This word is repeated in this paper. Authors should unify the use of that word.
3. What does DWOPER mean? The definition of DWOPER is required.
4. What does GRG2 mean? The definition of GRG2 is required.
5. What does USGS mean? The definition of USGS is required.
6. What does FEQ mean? The definition of FEQ is required.
7. Authors should add a reference of genetic algorithm (GA).
8. In Figure 2, the definition of NWS is required. Additionally, there is no “YES” in “Last simulation and forecasting time?”.
9. “Saint-Venant equation” and “Saint Venant equation” should be unified.
10. There is no reference for Montgomery et al. (2012).
11. Abbreviation definitions for “one-dimensional” and “two-dimensional” have been made, but the abbreviations (1D, 2D) are not used.
12. Is it Figure 3 the authors drew? Is it a cited figure? When authors cite a figure, the source should be specified. Additionally, which direction is north? What scale was used?
13. “One-dimensional was defined as 1D. However, “One-dimensional” was redefined as 1-D. Why did the authors redefine?
14. Figure 6 was divided into (a) and (b), but in the corresponding sentence, it was indicated by a and b. Unification is required.
15. In Figure 6(a), it is necessary to modify the values of x-axis.
16. “genetic algorithm (GA)” was redundantly redefined.
17. In Figure 7, there is no legend of each color.
18. In Figure 8, there is no legend of each color.
19. The formal unification of the references is required. Additionally, the order of references should be rearranged.
Finally, I hope that my comments will help you complement your study.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
I think we have incorporated all the changes recommended by this reviewer successfully.
I addressed the literature survey in my responses to the other reviewer above.
I feel that your comments have helped to complement the study and I thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Paper Water - I feel that your comments have helped to complement the study and I thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The title of this paper is “Testing of an Optimization/Simulation Model for Real-Time Flood Operation of River-Reservoir Systems”. The authors revised well the contents pointed out. Therefore, I recommend an accept in this paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors have addresses all my concerns satisfactorily. Suitable insights have been added to a paper already good in its original version. I’m also glad because the shortcoming at the first round of the review process has been overcome: Water journal can now benefit from a nice study.
There are few refinements to be done in terms of style, but they can be solved at the proofreading stage. I merely point out that in Figure 2 where it reads “HMS HMS” it should read “HEC-HMS”.
In conclusion, I recommend accepting this paper as it is.
