the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Characteristics of gauged abrupt wave fronts (walls of water) in flash floods in Scotland
Abstract. Extremely rapid rates of rise in river level and discharge are a subset of flash floods (‘abrupt wave front floods’, AWFs) and are separate hazards from peak river level. They pose a danger to life to river users and occur mainly in the summer. The rate of change in gauged river level and discharge can be used to assess and compare the severity of AWF events within and between catchments. We use several metrics of discharge severity to investigate AWFs on 260 Scottish gauged catchments. We use the full flow record for each station and map the occurrence of maximum 15 min change in river levels and discharge. We map a further three measures to compare risk between catchments including the multiple of the 15 min flow increase from the initial to terminal discharge. The concurrent increase in velocity is difficult to measure but wave celerity can be assessed where there are observations of the time of wave onset at more than one point on a channel. We investigate several such events on the River Findhorn in northeast Scotland. Such events need better monitoring forecasting and warning, particularly as extreme downpours are becoming more frequent with global warming.
- Preprint
(2022 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(278 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 May 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-456', Duncan Faulkner, 14 Mar 2025
reply
It is good to see that the authors' work on this important, previously-neglected hydrological hazard has been extended into Scotland. I offer just a few comments from a quick look the paper.
The use of Q15 to mean annual maximum rise in discharge over 15-minutes is a potential cause of confusion (especially for any readers who, like I did, start from the conclusions and work backwards). Q15 is commonly used in hydrology to refer to the 15th percentile on a flow duration curve. I suggest a change in terminology. Also I'd suggest rephrasing " annual maximum values of rise in level and discharge" to "annual maximum values of rise in level and rise in discharge", to avoid any misunderstanding.
There are several other instances where some rephrasing could aid clarity such as "coincidence between level and flow station maxima" which I believe is intended to refer to maximum rates of rise. LIkewise, does the "the mean maximum 15 min rise " refer to the mean of the annual maxima? And does the median in section 3.1 refer to the median of the annual maxima? Later, this is called RoRMED.
In 3.2, the authors should state that c refers to celerity, and give the units of all variables.
I cannot see that Eqn 1 is consistent with the definition given above. For one thing, it has no expression of maximisation.
It seems unfortunate that the first examples presented, in section 1, are all in the north of England rather than in Scotland, given the title of the paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-456-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', David Archer, 21 Mar 2025
reply
Response to comment by Duncan Faulkner on: Characteristics of gauged abrupt wave fronts (walls of water) in flash floods in Scotland
Comment
The use of Q15 to mean annual maximum rise in discharge over 15-minutes is a potential cause of confusion (especially for any readers who, like I did, start from the conclusions and work backwards). Q15 is commonly used in hydrology to refer to the 15th percentile on a flow duration curve. I suggest a change in terminology.
Response 1
We will add an additional definition for Q15 in the conclusions for people who start reading there!
Response 2
We agree that the use of Q15 as the maximum 15-min increase in discharge conflicts with the established use of Q!5 to refer to the 15th percentile on a flow duration curve. We have sought suitable alternatives. We also need to distinguish the median of annual maxima from the absolute maximum both of which we use in the text. And for consistency we apply the same criteria for change in 15-min level,
QW15med and QW15abs and similarly HW15med and HW15abs
for the median of the annual maximum increase in 15-minute discharge and for the absolute maximum 15-minute increase in discharge – and level. The additional ‘W’ is to indicate that it refers to the magnitude of the 15-min wave height.
These form the basis of further variables used in the text here abbreviated as follows:
The maximum absolute increase in discharge between the beginning and end of the 15 min period.
Note Equations not copied Eq 1
The rate of rise normalized by the median annual maxima peak flow QMED (IH, 1999).
Eq 2
The ratio of maximum to median 15 min annual maximum rise in discharge.
- Eq 3
The proportional increase in flow from the initial flow to the peak of the 15 min rise.
Comment
Also I'd suggest rephrasing " annual maximum values of rise in level and discharge" to "annual maximum values of rise in level and rise in discharge", to avoid any misunderstanding.
Response
Agreed
Comment
There are several other instances where some rephrasing could aid clarity such as "coincidence between level and flow station maxima" which I believe is intended to refer to maximum rates of rise.
Response
Suggested Revision
‘Coincidence between level and flow station maximum rates of rise, where the maximum H15abs
exceeded 0.6 m, occurred for 48% of stations’.
Comment
In 3.2, the authors should state that c refers to celerity, and give the units of all variables.
Response
Agreed
Comment
It seems unfortunate that the first examples presented, in section 1, are all in the north of England rather than in Scotland, given the title of the paper.
Response
We think it is a reasonable approach to use our previous research in an adjacent area as a guide to the characteristics of the events which we are likely to experience in Scotland
Suggested Revision
Archer et al., 2024 used gauged records of level and flow to examine the occurrence of such AWFs, noting their occurrence on every major catchment draining the Pennines in northern England. We use the lessons learned from this analysis in the extension here to neighbouring Scotland with a greater range of mountain environments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-456-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', David Archer, 21 Mar 2025
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-456', Charlie Pilling, 18 Apr 2025
reply
This is a well written, balanced paper that considers an important hazard that can be overlooked. It has been extensively researched and presented with thorough analysis. This is a valuable contribution and recommend that it is accepted 'as is'
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-456-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', David Archer, 18 Apr 2025
reply
Thank you for that encouraging comment
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-456-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', David Archer, 18 Apr 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
131 | 28 | 9 | 168 | 28 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 131
- PDF: 28
- XML: 9
- Total: 168
- Supplement: 28
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 58 | 30 |
United Kingdom | 2 | 53 | 28 |
China | 3 | 12 | 6 |
undefined | 4 | 10 | 5 |
France | 5 | 7 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 58