Determinants of modelling choices for 1-D free-surface flow and
morphodynamics in hydrology and hydraulics: a review

Cheviron, Bruno; Moussa, Roger

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3799-2016

Articles | Volume 20, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3799-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3799-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 20, issue 9

Review article

|

14 Sep 2016

Review article |

| 14 Sep 2016

Determinants of modelling choices for 1-D free-surface flow and morphodynamics in hydrology and hydraulics: a review

Bruno Cheviron and Roger Moussa

Download

Final revised paper (published on 14 Sep 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 08 Sep 2015)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C4198: 'REveiwe of the MS hess-2015-342 "Determinants of modelling choices for 1-D free-surface flow and erosion issues in hydrology: a review" by Cheviron and Moussa', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Oct 2015
- AC C6182: 'Response to Reviewer#1', Bruno Cheviron, 15 Jan 2016
RC C5737: 'Determinants of modelling choices for 1 free-surface flow and erosion issues in hydrology: a review', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Dec 2015
- AC C6183: 'Response to Reviewer#2', Bruno Cheviron, 15 Jan 2016

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (18 Jan 2016) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Bruno Cheviron on behalf of the Authors (19 Jan 2016)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (31 Jan 2016) by Nunzio Romano

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (10 Mar 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The paper presents a review of modelling approaches to free-surface flow and morphology. It aims to characterise the modelling choices which are gathered from published studies, as function of the dimensional and dimensionless characteristics of the physical system to be modelled. The final goal is to establish a list of guidelines and best practices helping modellers in choosing the right model.
Four different flow models (namely the Navier Stokes Equations, the Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes Equations, the Saint Venant equations, and Approximations to the Saint Venant equations) and related morphological models are considered. After introducing the equations, the paper proceeds by reviewing the use of these models in published studies, to build up a classification of model usage as function of various dimensional and dimensionless criteria. In detail, initially the correlation between model choice and spatial and temporal scales of the study domain are analysed. Then, a classification of flow typologies is introduced, based on characteristic depths and slopes, and modelling choices are matched to flow typologies using the above schematisaton. Finally, the usage of models as function of characteristic values of dimensionless numbers is analysed.
The paper raises a hot topic, since the increasing availability of computational tools based on different and competing mathematical models requires modellers to be increasingly aware of the range of validity and best usage of models.
Having said this, I have a number of major concerns. I think that the proposed classification criteria do not fully address the matter, and therefore the manuscript does not fully reach the objective (as stated in the abstract) "to help each modeller positioning his (her) choices with respect to the most frequent practices, within a generic, normative procedure". In this respect, I think some different views could be incorporated, or at least discussed. Furthermore, I find the presentation of the morphodynamic part of models a bit generic, unnecessarily stretched over different subsections, and incomplete of some recent developments. These concerns are discussed in detail in the attached Referee's report. In addition to them, the attached report presents a list of minor concerns and suggestions.
For these reasons, I recommend a severe major revision.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (05 Apr 2016)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (06 Apr 2016) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Bruno Cheviron on behalf of the Authors (12 Jul 2016) Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (23 Jul 2016) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Bruno Cheviron on behalf of the Authors (23 Jul 2016)

Short summary

This review paper investigates the determinants of modelling choices for numerous applications of 1-D free-surface flow and morphodynamics in hydrology and hydraulics. Each case study has a signature composed of given contexts (spatiotemporal scales, flow typology, and phenomenology) and chosen concepts (refinement and subscales of the flow model). This review proposes a normative procedure possibly enriched by the community for a larger, comprehensive and updated image of modelling strategies.