Research on Parameter Spatialization and Adaptive Correction Models in Fluid Numerical Simulations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript could be considered for publication after major revisions (see my comments in the attached marked manuscript).

The Author should also discuss the implications of the present study for the field of numerical modelling of environmental hydraulics flows. A careful proof-reading is also needed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The following comments are provided for the authors as a reference to revise their manuscript.

1. The authors should note that every pavement/land cover has its own feasible      range of Manning coefficient. Therefore, the authors should input the adequate values of the min. and max. Manning coefficient of a specific pavement/land cover. Otherwise, the present adaptive correction models might select infeasible Manning coefficients for further simulations.

2. The adopted dam-breaking event was in 1959, and the verification data was collected in 1964. The geography and land covers change a lot at present. So, the research results are believable and applicable?

3. Page 3 Line 82: How to place the nine gauges on the river centerline?

4. Please add the definition of all the notations in Eq. (1). Note that don’t miss the upper limit of the integral “a”.

5. In Eq. (1), The bottom friction force B and the components of the force Fs^e and Fs^w as well Fsⁿ and Fs^s are resistance forces to the particle. I think that the signs are supposed to be negative before all the resistance forces.

6. How to obtain Eq. (2) for the bottom friction? What does “a” stand for?

7. What’s the difference between n in Eq. (2) and N in Eq. (5) and Line 119?

8. Eq. (7) is not the definition of “relative error” as mentioned in Line 141.

9. Page 7 Eq. (10): The notation B has been used in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2).

10. Page 9: Are the values in the Manning coefficient matrix in Eq. (13) invariant or initial guess (values) for adaptive correction models? If they are initial values, please add “initial”.

11. Page 10 Lines 193-195: How to tell from the figures that “After comparing two kinds of logic, …with global optimization accuracy.”?

12. How to determine the values of a and c for the analysis in Figs. 6-13? Give the reasons and references.

 

Minor comments

1. Page 3 Line 100: Delete “H”.

2. “nc” should be “n_c” above Eq. (3).

3. Page 6 Line 118: “St” and “Gk” should be “S_t” and “G_k”.

4. Page 6 Line 129: There is a typo error for “Manning”.

5. Page 6 Line 139: There is a typo error for “ni-1”.

6. Page 7: The notation n in Eq. (9) is the same as the n in Eq. (2).

7. Page 7 Eq. (11): “c” needs to be defined. Is “a” the same as the one used in Eq. (1)?

8. Page 8 Line 157: “??” should be “1”. Delete the last word “H”.

9. Page 9: Give the unit for the digital values in Eq. (12).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The author considers the problem of estimating a spatial distribution of Manning coefficient instead of a constant value in river simulations by CFD calculations aiming to more accurate results. To estimate the values of the coefficients, an adaptive correction model is used. The problem is interesting and the scientific approach is of a good level.

 

This reviewer thinks that the paper could be accepted after a rather minor revision based on the following remarks:

 

1)     The use of English language needs improvements (some modifications are proposed below at the end of this text).

2)     The difference of the Control points C and gauge points G has to be clarified. How they are selected, where they are located and how they are used. I am writing this after having read the whole text; however this was a rather not clear point.

3)     In the paragraph above and below Figure 4 make explicit reference to this figure, i.e. describe the figure.

4)     You should have mentioned that a range [n_min,n_max] is prescribed for the Manning coefficient values before describing Logic A and Logic B. Also, perhaps n_min and n_max are preferable than min, max, respectively.

5)     Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 should be rewritten more clearly.

6)     Explain what does the value of n stand for in equation (9)?

7)     What does T in equation (10) stand for? The reader should not have to complete reading the whole manuscript in order to understand thinks he read in previous paragraphs.

8)     Sections 3.1 and 3.2: pay attention in the structure and sentences of the text in order to help the potential reader follow it. The author should have in mind that he is explaining to someone that need to know from before …

9)     Is there any hint on what happens if you increase the number of gauge and / or control points? Does this lead to an increase in accuracy of the simulation and in what impact on computing cost? What about the computing cost of such a calculation compared to a single simulation run?

10) How many terms, corresponding to what points are used in equation (3)?

11) Make Fig.2 smaller.

12) Make all plots in Figures 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 to have a greater size.

 

Proposed modifications:

- page 2, line 52: was used --> is used

- page 2, lines 66-67: ... Dam failure; as a consequence, this has become a verification use case in the relevant literature [26-28]

- page 2, line 69: DEM (Digital Elevation Model)

- page 2, line 71: It is necessary --> It was necessary

- page 2, lines 72-73: ... data. These elevation point data were obtained through ArcGIS Desktop software and finally a 1723x918 DEM with a resolution of 10m was generated (see Fig. 1).

- page 3, line 75: ... was abstracted as ... --> was considered to be (or modelled by) a straight line ...

- page 4: in Fig.2 change "Numberic Simulation System" to "Numerical Simulation System" (or Tool), as well as consider renaming the box entitled "Self-adaptive System" as "Adaptive Correction Model"

- page 5, line 108: Spatial distribution of the Manning coefficient (instead of design)?

- page 5, line 109: "Multiple spatialized Manning coefficients replace ..." --> "A spatial distribution is implemented instead of a constant value of Manning coefficient in multiple cross sections of the river along its path, aiming to optimize the effect of these coefficients in the final simulation.

- page 5, line 111: The spatial estimation of the Manning coefficient ... (instead of design)?

- page 5, last paragraph (below Fig. 3): Fig.3 shows that specific control points (isted of "many") and use "c" as a subscript in symbol nc

- page 6, line after 116: ... simulation the most accurate --> ... simulation as much as accurate. In the next line: ... the better. --> ... the better the accuracy is.

- page 6, line 118: make t in St an index

- page 6, line 119: ... for the current Manning coefficient N --> ... for the current vector of Manning coefficients.

- page 6, line 126: can be abstracted into an --> can be described by means of an

- page 6, line 127: parameter is input --> parameter is an input

- page 6, line 128: is input --> is the input

- page 6, line 129: are output --> are the autput

- page 6, line 137: Adjustment rules considering ... (Logic A) --> Logic A (just this)

- page 6, line 139: is it n_i-1 instead of ni-?

- page 7, line 145: Adjustment rules considering ... (Logic B) --> Logic B (just this)

- page 7, 4 lines before end of page: the range of the Manning coefficient is [0.01,0.1] instead of [0.1,0.01]

- page 8, line 157:  Algorithm 1

- page 14, line 239:4. Conclusion --> 4. Conclusions

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Author has addressed my comments to the original manuscript.

The manuscript can be considered for publication after a careful proof-reading to check and remove typos.

Author Response

Dear reviewers.
Thank you very much for your suggestions on my manuscript, I have learned a lot and I have rechecked the manuscript based on your suggestions.
Thank you again!

Kind regards,

Changjian Qiao

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Lines 258-259: Is “a” the same as “a”? If yes, use the same type for “a” throughout the manuscript.

 

2 I suggest using “matrix” rather than “vector” in the line just above Eq. (14) as well as in the other places.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your suggestions on my manuscript, I learned a lot.
Based on your suggestions, I have made the following changes in the revised version.

1. Lines 258-259: Is “a” the same as “a”? If yes, use the same type for “a” throughout the manuscript.

Response: (line 229) Yes, they are same. I have corrected them in the revised version

2.  I suggest using “matrix” rather than “vector” in the line just above Eq. (14) as well as in the other places.

Response: I have corrected them in lines 165,212,214257,262.269,272,286,290.

Finally, thank you again!

Kind regards,

Changjian Qiao