the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Grain roughness controls on velocity and bed stress fields around a fully protruding obstacle in supercritical flow
Abstract. Supercritical flows in mountain rivers create complex flow-obstacle interactions that govern infrastructure vulnerability and channel morphodynamics, yet current understanding remains focused mostly on smooth-bed assumptions that poorly represent natural gravel-bed channels, where grain-scale roughness fundamentally alters flow physics near the bed and around obstacles such as bridge piers and in-stream vegetation. This study quantifies how bed surface characteristics control velocity fields, turbulent structures, and bed stress patterns around obstacles in supercritical flow through high-resolution detached eddy simulations coupled with volume-of-fluid free surface tracking. We examined three morphodynamic states representative of natural channel evolution: smooth beds analogous to bedrock channels, rough flat beds representing post-flood recovery conditions, and equilibrium scoured beds representing quasi-steady morphodynamic states. Digital representation of detailed bed surface elevation, including individual sediment grains, was considered using Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry. Numerical simulations reproduced characteristic supercritical flow structures including wall-jet formations, horseshoe vortex systems, and reverse spillage phenomena across all bed configurations. We observed that grain-scale roughness completely transforms flow organization from coherent, predictable vortical structures to chaotic, grain-dominated flow fields. While smooth beds exhibit symmetric stress distributions with organized patterns, rough beds generate highly skewed distributions with extreme spatial variability, where coefficient of variation increases from 37 % to 115 %. Individual grains work as micro-obstacles, creating localized stress concentrations exceeding smooth-bed conditions by factors of 2–3, which can fundamentally alter sediment transport mechanisms. An equilibrium scour hole creates hierarchical flow disturbances where large-scale topographic modifications interact with grain-scale disruptions to produce the most complex stress fields observed. These findings demonstrate that engineering design standards based on smooth-bed assumptions can significantly underestimate the spatial heterogeneity and peak stress magnitudes characteristic of natural rough-bed conditions. The transition from organized stress patterns in smooth beds to grain-scale dominated physics in rough beds necessitates fundamentally different approaches to flow prediction, infrastructure design, and morphodynamic modelling in steep channel environments.
- Preprint
(24973 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1968 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4327', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Nov 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Angel Monsalve, 02 Dec 2025
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in providing such thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your positive assessment of our work—recognizing it as "technically rigorous," "scientifically meaningful," and filling "an important gap"—is very encouraging and motivates us to further improve the manuscript.
We fully agree with your suggestions for improvement, particularly regarding organizational enhancements, toning down subjective language, better separation of results from interpretation, and strengthening the literature grounding in the Discussion section. These are all excellent points that will strengthen the final manuscript.
We apologize for the delay in our response. We deliberately waited to see if a second review would appear in the system before submitting our detailed response. Our intention is to prepare a comprehensive revision that addresses all reviewer comments simultaneously in a single, cohesive final version. We believe this approach will be more effective and result in a stronger manuscript than addressing comments piecemeal.
We will prepare detailed, point-by-point responses to each of your specific suggestions and implement the requested changes in the revised manuscript. Your thoughtful critique provides clear direction for improving the clarity, organization, and scientific rigor of our work.
Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback and the care you took in evaluating our article. We are committed to addressing all of your comments thoroughly and look forward to submitting an improved manuscript.
Best regards,
Angel and OscarCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4327-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Angel Monsalve, 29 Jan 2026
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you again for the comprehensive and insightful review of our manuscript. We are pleased to submit this revised version, which has been significantly improved by your constructive and detailed comments.
Your feedback provided a clear roadmap for strengthening the scientific rigor and clarity of our work. In this new version, we have carefully integrated the organizational enhancements you suggested and expanded the literature grounding, specifically within the Discussion section, to better position our results within the context of established research on gravel-bed turbulence and supercritical flow physics. We feel the manuscript is now much more robust and better serves the community's need to understand these complex flow-structure interactions.
We have provided a detailed point-by-point response to all your comments alongside the revised text. We sincerely appreciate your guidance in helping us refine this study.
Best regards,
Angel and Oscar
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4327-AC2
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Angel Monsalve, 02 Dec 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4327', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jan 2026
With pleasure I have read the article entitled “Grain roughness controls on velocity and bed stress fields around a fully protruding obstacle in supercritical flow”, which addresses an important gap in fluvial hydraulics by exploring grain-scale roughness effects in supercritical flows via a combined physical experiments and high-resolution numerical modeling approach. While its methodology and motivation are strong, with caveats where needed, I still feel that a couple of points could be better emphasised by the authors to help guide the readers, around the application of this model and limitations it may have.
The study’s experimental dataset relies almost exclusively on bulk parameters (discharge, depth) due to the utilisation of extremely shallow supercritical flows with high air entrainment rates, which precluded direct velocity field measurements via standard imaging or acoustic approaches (like PIV or ADV). This means that the model validation is dependent on qualitative visual agreement and bulk metrics, rather than rigorous quantitative validation against spatially detailed velocity measurements, which is a significant limitation for assessing the accuracy of grain-scale turbulence structures. Albeit these limitations are described in the methods and revisited in the discussion, so that readers are made aware that model validation is largely qualitative, the consequences of this choice could perhaps be further considered or systematically linked to specific claims; for example, the impact of lacking turbulence measurements on confidence in stress distributions could be discussed more critically, and the restriction to a fixed-bed, single-obstacle setup could be tied more directly to what can and cannot be generalized to natural rivers or morphodynamics.
As is typical of all numerical modeling studies without direct high resolution measurements to validate the major findings, the findings regarding stress distributions and turbulent kinetic energy must be interpreted cautiously.
The paper employs a hybrid Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) in OpenFOAM coupled with the Volume-of-Fluid (VOF) method for free-surface tracking. While this choice is justified by computational tractability, DES/VOF approaches (and even LES in general) are known in the literature to potentially miss subgrid turbulence and can struggle with highly non-orthogonal, complex mesh zones—precisely the scenario for grain-dominated flows around obstacles. The authors refine the mesh around the obstacle, grain tops, and free surface, and they use non-orthogonal correctors and bounded schemes to stabilize calculations in those regions. The authors do not provide a detailed, spatially focused error or grid‑convergence analysis for stresses and velocities at grain crests or in the horseshoe‑vortex region, so the impact on local numerical accuracy is acknowledged qualitatively but not quantified. Consequently, while readers are warned that some local details may be less reliable, the paper stops short of systematically tying specific numerical issues to specific uncertainties in the key diagnostics (e.g. bed shear distributions, near‑grain turbulence statistics). As the study’s non-orthogonal mesh with aspect ratio problems at certain places, raises concerns about local numerical accuracy in regions most critical for its conclusions, the authors are asked to elaborate further on the discussion section to help the reader assess when the application of this approach is acceptable or concerning. For example, when the focus is on modeling domain-scale patterns (overall velocity field, bulk stresses, free-surface shape), local numerical accuracy in critical regions is probably sufficient to support the main qualitative conclusions. However, in detailed applications where one is focused on the quantitative use of near-bed stress distributions at grain scale (e.g. for the precise entrainment thresholds or detailed turbulence spectra), the existing mesh quality and validation strategy are not strong enough to claim high local numerical accuracy, and results should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.
Last, the research fixes grains and treats the bed as static, omitting mobile sediment dynamics and hyporheic exchange (impermeable bed surface). While readers are informed about the fixed‑bed assumption, yet its implications for erosion prediction, threshold estimation, and morphodynamic evolution, or the consequences for ecohydraulic or biogeochemical applications are not discussed remain under‑emphasized. In natural systems, grain mobility interacts with flow and stress fields, so omitting these factors limits transferability of the results, especially for predicting erosion and morphodynamic feedbacks. This can be further elaborated in the discussion section to benefit reader’s comprehension.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4327-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Angel Monsalve, 29 Jan 2026
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your incredibly thorough and rigorous evaluation of our manuscript. We are pleased to submit this revised version, which we believe is significantly stronger and more cohesive thanks to your expert insights into numerical modeling and fluvial hydraulics.
Your feedback provided a clear roadmap for bridging the gap between our methodology and our findings. In direct response to your critique, we have substantially strengthened the Discussion section and implemented a tiered confidence framework to more systematically link our validation approach to our specific results. We feel these additions, along with the detailed refinements made throughout the text, have resulted in a much more robust and impactful study.
We have addressed each of your comments in the point-by-point response and are grateful for the time and care you invested in helping us improve our work.
Best regards,
Angel and Oscar
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4327-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Angel Monsalve, 29 Jan 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 236 | 197 | 30 | 463 | 75 | 25 | 27 |
- HTML: 236
- PDF: 197
- XML: 30
- Total: 463
- Supplement: 75
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General Comments
This manuscript presents a technically rigorous and scientifically meaningful study into how grain-scale roughness and scour morphology influence flow organization, turbulence structure, and bed stress fields around emergent cylinders in supercritical flow. The authors combine high-resolution Structure-from-Motion topography, grain-resolving computational meshes, and LES-VOF simulations with controlled flume experiments, an impressive methodological framework that allows them to examine supercritical hydraulics in gravel-bed channels at a level of detail that is rarely done.
The contribution is significant. Smooth-bed assumptions still dominate many hydraulic engineering, ecohydraulic, and sediment-transport models, yet are often inappropriate for steep, gravel-bed rivers where supercritical flows and complex roughness elements are common. This paper fills an important gap by documenting how roughness fundamentally alters velocity fields, coherent structures (e.g., horseshoe vortices), and shear stress distributions. The work is timely and well aligned with the growing recognition that grain-scale processes matter for slop e, velocity, roughness relationships in steep rivers.
The manuscript is overall well written and thoughtfully analyzed. However, the narrative is occasionally verbose and sometimes overstates interpretations using subjective wording (e.g., “remarkable,” “critical,” “severely”). The Results section in particular blends results with interpretation, and the Discussion sometimes introduces claims that should be more firmly grounded in existing literature. Organizational improvements, such as adding a table summarizing flow parameters across flume and numerical runs, would help the reader follow the experimental design.
With moderate tightening and clarification, the paper will be a strong contribution.
Specific Comments
Discussion