the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An efficient hybrid downscaling framework to estimate high-resolution river hydrodynamics
Abstract. Flow depth and velocity are the most important hydrodynamic variables that govern various river functions, including water resources, navigation, sediment transport, and biogeochemical cycling. Existing high-resolution flow depth simulations rely on either computationally expensive river hydrodynamic models (RHMs) or data-driven models with formidable training costs, whereas data-driven modeling of flow velocity has rarely been explored. Here, using the hybrid Low-fidelity, Spatial analysis, and Gaussian Process learning (LSG) model, we developed a downscaling approach to accurately construct high-resolution flow depth and velocity from a two-dimensional (2-D) RHM simulation at coarse resolution. The LSG models were trained and tested in an urban watershed in Houston using two different hurricane-driven flood events. The results showed that through downscaling, the simulation errors were reduced to less than one-fourth and one-third of the errors of the low-resolution 2-D RHM for flow depth and velocity, respectively. Our analysis further revealed that the dominant uncertainty sources of the downscaled hydrodynamics are different, with flow velocity dominated by the dimensionality reduction error, which we reduced by using a regionalized training procedure. The downscaling approach achieves an 84-fold acceleration in computational time compared to the high-resolution 2-D RHM, making high-fidelity ensemble flood modeling feasible. More importantly, the developed method provides an opportunity to couple large-scale hydrodynamical processes with local physical, chemical, and biological processes in river models.
- Preprint
(7422 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(17119 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3816', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2025
The manuscript presents a hybrid downscaling framework aimed at improving the accuracy and computational efficiency of high-resolution river hydrodynamics, including both flow depth and velocity. The authors used an LSG model developed by Fraehr et al. to construct high-resolution flow depth and velocity from a low-fidelity 2-D RHM simulation. The paper is generally well written and the results are clearly presented. The computational efficiency demonstrated (84-fold speed-up) is impressive. Here are some specific comments.
(1) The paper presents a nice follow-up study of Fraehr et al. (2022 & 2023a). Unlike Fraehr’s previous studies, flow velocity was also downscaled. The training of the Sparse GP models was performed independently for flow depth and velocity. However, the difference between the characteristics of depth and velocity is not very clear to me. It looks like the method is the same as Fraehr’s papers except for a few details. The authors stated that “this is one of the first studies to explore methods for fast and accurate simulations of high-resolution flow velocity”. Is it simply because the training of velocity models is so difficult that nobody is doing it? My suggestion is to focus on flow velocity, and perhaps incorporate a comparison between the LSG model and other velocity downscaling models in terms of both accuracy and computational cost, which would help place this work in a broader context and demonstrate its relative advantages.
(2) The model was validated for a single flood event in Houston. The authors stated “The effectiveness and transferability of our method are tested in an urbanized watershed in the Houston area using data from two extreme hurricane events”. How could one flood prove its transferability? The incorporation of more historical events and observed hydroclimatic data could strengthen the claim of model generalizability.
(3) “Furthermore, based on this downscaling method, we propose a new paradigm to couple large-scale hydrodynamical processes with local detailed physical, chemical, and biological processes in river models”. This is exciting but not validated in the paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3816-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3816', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Feb 2025
The study presented a good downscaling method for hydrodynamics from low-quality outputs to high-quality outputs. I think the method is innovative and promising since it can save considerable computational time. The paper is well written. I recommend the journal to publish this study, but I think some minor improvement is needed.
1) The author should clarify what the main innovation that is presented by the authors from that in Fraehr et al. (2022).
2) In the result section, I recommend the authors should add some capitals for subsections, since there are many figures listed.
3) I do not agree to the last two comments that were posted by the first reviewer. The reviewer think that one single flood event is not sufficient to prove transferability of the method. I do not think so, because the numerical simulation of a flood actually need numerous time steps, as long as in the first hundreds of time steps can perform well, the method will inevitably perform well for further more time steps. There is no need to do with other more flood events. The first reviewer also think that the authors "propose a new paradigm to couple large-scale hydrodynamical processes with local detailed physical, chemical, and biological processes in river models”, but not validated in the paper. I think this new paradigm is presented in the discussion section. This theoretical assumption is interesting and promising. I do not think such a discussion must be validated in the current study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3816-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3816', Anonymous Referee #3, 17 Feb 2025
I reviewed the manuscript entitled “An efficient hybrid downscaling framework to estimate high-resolution river hydrodynamics” by Tan et al. The manuscript applies the Fraehr et al. (2022) method but for the simulated flow depth and velocity, which is different than Fraehr et al. (2022) that is on the flood extent. The manuscript assesses the utility of the method using Hurricane Harvey. Overall, I think the manuscript is a novel one compared to Fraehr et al. (2022) given the different focusing variables. I only have one major concern and two suggestions on writing of the manuscript. There are also 22 minor comments/editing in the annotated manuscript. Therefore, I would suggest a moderate revision.
Major concern: The method is applied to only one event
I understand the HF RHM simulation is very time consuming. Instead of doing another case, I wonder is it possible to compare the results to some ground-based records and satellite observation? Harvey is a devastating event and I believe there should be plenty of measurements or reports on the inundation during the event. It would be great to see how are the LF, HF, and downscaled depths and velocities (hopefully have) compared to the ground-based observations.
Suggestions on improving the presentation of the manuscript
I have two suggestions regarding the presentation of the manuscript. First, I think the authors need to dedicate a subsection within the current Section 2 to introduce their strategies on evaluation of the model simulations. What is the reference? Which error metrics are used? What are the methods for validation? Currently, this information was given in different locations within Section 3, which is not good. Second, I think it is better to have subsections for the results section. Perhaps Figure 4 to 7 can be grouped into one subsection, presenting the validation results; and Figure 8 to 10 is another for the uncertainty analysis.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
159 | 61 | 7 | 227 | 25 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 159
- PDF: 61
- XML: 7
- Total: 227
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 98 | 44 |
China | 2 | 37 | 16 |
Japan | 3 | 9 | 4 |
Brazil | 4 | 8 | 3 |
Russia | 5 | 6 | 2 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 98