the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ratio Limits of Water Storage and Outflow in Rainfall-runoff Process
Abstract. Through the numerical simulations of the hydrodynamic model, the water storage and discharge are found to be limited to envelope lines and the discharge/water depth process lines during water rising and falling showed a grid-shaped distribution. Furthermore, if a catchment is regarded as a semi-open water storage system, there is a nonlinear relationship between the inside average water depth and the outlet water depth, namely the water storage ratio curve, which resembles the shape of a “plume”. In the case of an open channel without considering spatial variability, the water storage ratio curve is limited to three values (i.e., the upper, the steady, and the lower limit), which are found to be independent of meteorological (rainfall intensity), vegetation (Manning’s coefficient), and terrain (slope gradient) conditions. Meteorological, vegetation, and terrain conditions only affect the size of the “plume” without changing its shape. Rainfall, especially weak rain (rainfall intensity is less than 5.0 mm h-1) significantly affects the fluctuations of water storage ratio, which can be divided into three modes, that is Mode Ⅰ during rainfall beginning stage, Mode Ⅱ during rainfall duration stage, and Mode Ⅲ during rainfall end stage. Results indicate that the determination of the nonlinear relationship of the water storage ratio curve under different geographical scenarios will provide new ideas for simulation and early warning of floods.
- Preprint
(1038 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 Apr 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-25', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2024
reply
This manuscript investigates the realtionship between the inside average water depth (H) and outlet water depth (h) in an arbitrary catchment which is assumed to be a conceptual water tank. After evaluating the water storage ratio curve (H/h) sensitivity to the catchment area, the Manning’s coefficient, the slope gradient and the rainfall intensity, they propose the application of this variable within a simplified yet apparently quite effective rainfall-runoff model named distributed runoff model (DRM), and positively compare the results with an already validated diffusion wave (DW) approximation of the shallow water equations by numerical simulations for simulating ground surface runoff.
The paper has some useful elements, but in my opinion it cannot be published in its current format due to the following reasons:
- the abstract starts in medias res, without any introduction regarding the aim and the methodology of the work
- the discussion is basically absent, the authors just sum up the main results with no added comments
- results are presented in terms of comparison between DW and DRM for a real rainfall event, but no real runoff data (not even discharge) is used
- the overall writing needs some improvement (see the attached file)
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2024-25', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Apr 2024
reply
This study establishes the existence of a nonlinear relationship between the average water depth within the watershed and the outlet water depth (i.e., water storage ratio), and investigates the factors influencing the fluctuations of this ratio. The authors also introduce the Distributed Runoff Model as a means to simplify the hydrodynamic model, with the goal of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of flood forecasting. While the idea presented is valuable and the findings are interesting, the quality of the paper requires improvement before publication.
- Figure 4 and lines 158 to 170 discussed the effectiveness and efficiency of DRM, yet there is a lack of evidence demonstrating that DRM is computationally more efficient. Should this be addressed by comparing computational time, space requirements, or other relevant aspects?
- Figure 7 indicates that the simulation results of DRM closely match those of DW. However, can we confidently draw this conclusion (that DRM reproduces the calculation results of the time-consuming hydrodynamic model well) based solely on one rainfall event at one location? Suggesting applying more rainfall events at different site and using metrics to evaluation the performance of DRM compared with DW.
- Section 6 only included the results. Discussion could include the comparison between your results and previous studies.
- The last paragraph of the Introduction Section lacks clarity in introducing/summarizing your study and needs to be revised.
- Does this study assume that the interbasin groundwater flow is not considered as inputs to the watershed? Please clarify and provide a clear statement regarding this assumption in the Methods Section.
- Minor revision: Lines 134 to 136 should be one sentence, not two.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-25-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
216 | 43 | 15 | 274 | 16 | 18 |
- HTML: 216
- PDF: 43
- XML: 15
- Total: 274
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1