the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
OpenFOAM-avalanche 2312: Depth-integrated Models Beyond Dense Flow Avalanches
Abstract. Numerical simulations have become an important tool for the estimation and mitigation of gravitational mass flows, such as avalanches, landslides, pyroclastic flows or turbidity currents. Depth-integration stands as a pivotal concept in rendering numerical models applicable to real-world scenarios, as it provides the required efficiency and a streamlined workflow for geographic information systems. In recent years, a large number of flow models were developed following the idea of depth-integration, thereby enlarging the applicability and reliability of this family of process models substantially. It has been previously shown that the Finite Area Method of OpenFOAM® can be utilized to express and solve the basic depth-integrated models representing incompressible dense flows. In this manuscript, the previous work (Rauter et al., 2018) is extended beyond the dense flow regime to account for suspended particle flows, such as turbidity currents and powder snow avalanches. A novel coupling mechanism is introduced to enhance the simulation capabilities for mixed snow avalanches. Further, we will give an updated description of the revised computational framework, its integration into OpenFOAM and interfaces to geographic information systems. This work aims to provide practitioners and scientists with an open source tool that facilitates transparency and reproducibility and that can be easily applied to real world scenarios. The tool can be used as a baseline for further developments and in particular allows for modular integration of customized process models.
- Preprint
(2321 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2265 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-210', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Mar 2024
The manuscript presents a numerical coupling method to simulate dense flow avalanches using OpenFOAM. The work is very interesting and relevant and represents a substantial contribution to modelling science within the scope of Geoscientific Model Development. The methods and results are discussed properly. It would be interesting to know more about the reason for choosing this method and what would be alternatives (not existing). At the current state, the method is more appropriate for researchers than for practitioners as mentioned in the introduction, because of its sensitivity. Hence, more details on the possible opportunities and further developments would be relevant. Showing clearly and in more detail the possible extentions and how they could improve the results would be useful.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-210-RC1 -
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-210', Juan Antonio Añel, 27 Mar 2024
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on a repository not suitable for scientific publication. You must use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available before the Discussions stage. Also, please, include in the repository the relevant primary input/output data for your experiments.In this way, if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal. I should note that, actually, your manuscript should not have been accepted in Discussions, given this lack of compliance with our policy. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-210-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Matthias Rauter, 31 Mar 2024
Dear Executive Editor,
thank you very much for putting our attention on this issue. Since this module is part of a larger model/framework, we included our code in the supplementary materials.We now also uploaded our code to Zenodo.org (https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10900454) and will update the respective part in the revised manuscript.
Best regards,
Matthias RauterCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-210-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Matthias Rauter, 31 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-210', Dieter Issler, 23 Apr 2024
The attached ZIP file contains the files
ref_rep_egusphere-2024-210.pdf – Reviewer's report
egusphere-2024-210.commDI.pdf – Manuscript with reviewer's annotations
If the revised manuscript were to be sent to me for review, I would very much appreciate if the authors did not reply to each of my annotations in their manuscript—just to the ones they did not implement! The journal may officially request this, but it simply does not make sense in this case.
-
EC1: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Poulet, 24 Apr 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for the detailed comments provided for this manuscript. I can see the annotated manuscript attached to your post (with the notes appearing when the document is downloaded and opened with Acrobat), but unfortunately not the overall report. Could you please attach that document again (ref_rep_egusphere-2024-210.pdf) as a reply to this post?
Best regards,Thomas Poulet
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-210-EC1 - EC2: 'Reply on RC2: missing document attached', Thomas Poulet, 25 Apr 2024
-
EC1: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Poulet, 24 Apr 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
362 | 104 | 21 | 487 | 21 | 10 | 8 |
- HTML: 362
- PDF: 104
- XML: 21
- Total: 487
- Supplement: 21
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1