Tsunami modeling at lake-scale using non-linear shallow water equations
Abstract. The steep slopes and shores along lakes and reservoirs in mountainous regions, specifically with glacial history such as the Alps, Alaska or the Himalaya, are prone to terrestrial and subaqueous mass movements. Particularly, increasing temperature due to climate change may affect the stability of mountain slopes because of thawing permafrost and retreating glaciers. Moreover, particular sediment-mechanical properties promote subaqueous mass movements in regions which have experienced glaciation. The occurring mass movements may lead to the generation of a tsunami-like wave when interacting with the water body of a lake or reservoir causing considerable damage to infrastructure and endangering human lives. A prominent example was documented on Lake Lucerne in central Switzerland in 1601. A series of subaqueous landslides following an earthquake led to a tsunami with wave heights of up to 4 m, which flooded parts of the city of Lucerne. Other examples in Switzerland and abroad show that the danger of a lake tsunami is very real. A detailed risk assessment is therefore crucial for mitigation or prevention of such hazard. Current state-of-the-art tools for tsunami modeling are typically used in ocean settings. In this study we evaluate whether models based on hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic non-linear shallow water equations also produce reliable results in lake settings, i.e. for smaller water depth and shorter propagation distance. We perform benchmark tests and compare results to experimental data in order to assess the applicability of hydrostatic versus non-hydrostatic non-linear shallow water equation solvers for tsunami modeling at lake-scale.
The manuscript compares BASEMENT, GeoClaw (both NLSW) and the non-hydrostatic BoussClaw model. The numerical comparison is potentially useful, However, the scope, internal consistency, and reproducibility of the results require major revision.
Major comments
The main contribution appears to be the evaluation of BASEMENT for solitary-wave propagation and run-up. The distinction between hydrostatic and dispersive models, and the numerical modeling of landslide tsunamis in Alpine lakes, are not new. The authors should state precisely what is new relative to previous work.
The present results cannot be applied directly to Alpine slide tsunamis since the study does not contain landslide dynamics. The authors should clearly state this limitation or add a physically based landslide-wave application.
Figures 7 and 8 appear inconsistent with Appendices C and D. For example, for (A=8) m, (h_{\mathrm{ref}}=25) m, and (s=6.4) km, Figure 7 appears to show amplitude reductions of approximately 70% for BASEMENT and GeoClaw and 40% for BoussClaw. Table C1 gives −15.858%, −16.018%, and −9.209%, respectively. The authors should verify the figures and tables.
The numerical treatment in Results Part 2 is insufficiently specified. The authors should state 1) how (k_b=0) is implemented, 2) how these values would be chosen in a real application, 3) wet/dry depth threshold, 4) the treatment of momentum and friction near (h\approx 0).
A grid sensitivity test and wet/dry threshold sensitivity test are recommended for run-up and overland flow.
Minor comments