Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1819
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1819
17 Jul 2024
 | 17 Jul 2024

Exploring implications of input parameter uncertainties on GLOF modelling results using the state-of-the-art modelling code, r.avaflow

Sonam Rinzin, Stuart Dunning, Rachel Carr, Ashim Sattar, and Martin Mergili

Abstract. Modelling complex mass flow processes like glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) for hazard and risk assessments involves substantial data and computational resources, often leading researchers to use low-resolution, open-access data and parameters based on plausibility rather than direct measurement, which, although effective in back analysis, introduces significant uncertainties in forward modelling. To determine the sensitivity of the model outputs stemming from input parameter uncertainties in the forward modelling, we selected nine parameters relevant to GLOF modelling and performed a total of 78 simulations in the physically-based r.avaflow model. Our results indicate that GLOF modelling outputs are notably sensitive to six parameters, which are, in order of importance: 1) volume of mass movements entering lakes; 2) DEM datasets; 3) the origin of mass movements; 4) mesh size; 5) basal frictional angle; and 6) entrainment coefficient. The volume of mass movement impacting lakes has the greatest impact on GLOF output, with an average coefficient of variation (CV) = 47 %, while the internal friction angle had the least impact (CV=0.4 %). We recommend that future GLOF modelling should carefully consider the output uncertainty stemming from the sensitive input parameters identified here, some of which cannot be constrained before a GLOF and must be considered only statistically.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Sonam Rinzin, Stuart Dunning, Rachel Carr, Ashim Sattar, and Martin Mergili

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1819', Takashi Kimura, 23 Aug 2024
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1819', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Nov 2024
Sonam Rinzin, Stuart Dunning, Rachel Carr, Ashim Sattar, and Martin Mergili
Sonam Rinzin, Stuart Dunning, Rachel Carr, Ashim Sattar, and Martin Mergili

Viewed

Total article views: 447 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
308 118 21 447 30 7 11
  • HTML: 308
  • PDF: 118
  • XML: 21
  • Total: 447
  • Supplement: 30
  • BibTeX: 7
  • EndNote: 11
Views and downloads (calculated since 17 Jul 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 17 Jul 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 447 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 447 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 05 Dec 2024
Download
Short summary
We evaluated the sensitivity of model outputs to input parameter uncertainties by performing multiple GLOF simulations using the r.avaflow model. We found out that GLOF modelling outputs are highly sensitive to six parameters: volume of mass movements entering lakes, DEM datasets, origin of mass movements, mesh size, basal frictional angle, and entrainment coefficient. Future modelling should carefully consider the output uncertainty from these sensitive parameters.