the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 25 Nov 2025
Culvert Blockages in 2D-Hydrodynamic Flood Modeling: Quantifying the Impact on Flood Dynamics and Designing Mitigation Strategies
Abstract. Culverts play a critical role in conveying surface runoff during flash flood events, yet their failure due to blockages can significantly alter flood dynamics, particularly in small, topographically complex catchments. Despite this, culvert blockages are often neglected in flood modeling. To address such gap, this study presents a comprehensive analysis of culvert blockages using the open-source hydrodynamic model TELEMAC-2D, applied to a flash-flood-prone catchment in central Germany. First, the study assesses recent flood events and evaluates the completeness and accuracy of official culvert datasets, identifying missing culverts. A dynamic culvert blockage module is then implemented, simulating varying degrees and timings of blockage based on water level thresholds at culvert inlets. Through a series of flood scenarios, the study identifies culverts whose blockage has a major impact on flood hydrographs and inundation extents. Results highlight the importance of accurate culvert representation and demonstrate how scenario-based modeling of blockages can support the identification of critical infrastructure. This enables the development of targeted mitigation strategies, such as prioritized maintenance or emergency protection, ultimately reducing flood risks. The findings underscore the need to integrate culvert blockages into flash flood modelling and risk assessments and support future research into blockage formation mechanisms and improved field data acquisition.
- Preprint
(44073 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 Jan 2026)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5228', Reinhard Hinkelmann, 28 Nov 2025 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5228', Reinhard Hinkelmann, 29 Nov 2025
reply
The authors present an interesting article on a topic which is well-known to most flood modelers, but what is under-researched so far. In that sense, this article is very welcome and the analyses are very systematic, well structured and well explained. I only have several minor points where the authors should comment on:
- Mitigation strategies are in the title, but only investigated a bit in chap. 3.5; the authors should check whether that should remain in the title; should they want to leave it in the title, a bit more investigations should be done
- L. 31f: I suggest here to add that the 2 methods are for the computation of the losses or are runoff generation approaches
- Fig 1: please show both creeks in Fig 1, also Würzburg; I suggest to use the English terms, eg Bavaria; please check whether the Reichenberger and Guttenberger Bach can be shown more clearly
- L. 118: comparatively dry for Bavaria, eg in Berlin / Brandenburg the precipitation is ~500 mm; 800 mm is average for Germany -> rephrase
- Chap 2.2: please comment on even larger events eg for the Starkregengefahrenkarten which are currently produced in the federal states 90 or 100 mm in 1 hour is investigated; this can be done here or in the discussion later, limitation part; how would more extreme events impact your results ?
- L. 150: would you expect better results with a finer mesh ? grid convergence, please comment on this
- L. 151: mention the resolution of the DEM
- Headline 2.4: wouldn't it be better to call this Plausibilisation of the Model or similar ? see also line 491
- Chap. 2.5: comment here or in the discussion; you could also link Telemac2D with a drainage model; would that have advantages, possibly produce more realistic results ?
- Chap. 3.3: I suggest to include 1, 2 or 3 cross sections and the related figures from the appendix here in the paper; the cross sections not shown and the related text then should occur in the appendix
- Could one think about some statistical approaches to determine when which culvert is blocked to wish extent ? include that also in the manuscript
- Can't one overall say the impact of the blockage is not that big except some local effects ? Should you agree, formulate that more clearly, especially in the conclusions and abstract; this would not mean that the paper is not good or not novel, but would provide a valuable information to readers and flood modelersThere are further minor points in a pdf attached; no need to comment on them
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 124 | 27 | 10 | 161 | 3 | 3 |
- HTML: 124
- PDF: 27
- XML: 10
- Total: 161
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The authors present an interesting article on a topic which is well-known to most flood modelers, but what is under-researched so far. In that sense, this article is very welcome and the analyses are very systematic, well structured and well explained. I only have several minor points where the authors should comment on:
- Mitigation strategies are in the title, but only investigated a bit in chap. 3.5; the authors should check whether that should remain in the title; should they want to leave it in the title, a bit more investigations should be done
- L. 31f: I suggest here to add that the 2 methods are for the computation of the losses or are runoff generation approaches
- Fig 1: please show both creeks in Fig 1, also Würzburg; I suggest to use the English terms, eg Bavaria; please check whether the Reichenberger and Guttenberger Bach can be shown more clearly
- L. 118: comparatively dry for Bavaria, eg in Berlin / Brandenburg the precipitation is ~500 mm; 800 mm is average for Germany -> rephrase
- Chap 2.2: please comment on even larger events eg for the Starkregengefahrenkarten which are currently produced in the federal states 90 or 100 mm in 1 hour is investigated; this can be done here or in the discussion later, limitation part; how would more extreme events impact your results ?
- L. 150: would you expect better results with a finer mesh ? grid convergence, please comment on this
- L. 151: mention the resolution of the DEM
- Headline 2.4: wouldn't it be better to call this Plausibilisation of the Model or similar ? see also line 491
- Chap. 2.5: comment here or in the discussion; you could also link Telemac2D with a drainage model; would that have advantages, possibly produce more realistic results ?
- Chap. 3.3: I suggest to include 1, 2 or 3 cross sections and the related figures from the appendix here in the paper; the cross sections not shown and the related text then should occur in the appendix
- Could one think about some statistical approaches to determine when which culvert is blocked to wish extent ? include that also in the manuscript
- Can't one overall say the impact of the blockage is not that big except some local effects ? Should you agree, formulate that more clearly, especially in the conclusions and abstract; this would not mean that the paper is not good or not novel, but would provide a valuable information to readers and flood modelers
There are further minor points in a pdf attached; no need to comment on them