Estimating Flooding at River Spree Floodplain Using HEC-RAS Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Going through the paper entitled “Estimating Flooding at River Spree Floodplain Using HEC-RAS Simulation” I must say that the paper may be reconsidered for publication after they carry out a major revision in the line of the following directions.

1.      Introduce the name of the country/region in the title for better international readership.

2.      Introduction section needs more recent literature review to place your central research questions/objectives in context. Literature from the global context including the monsoon Asia where maximum floods are recorded. A few literatures as mentioned below may be consulted to develop these sections.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2839-4

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000037035.65105.95

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-021-09384-5

https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5852

https://doi.org/10.1177/097317410600200102

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05242-w

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1629-6

3.      Hierarchy of the heads and subheadings of the paper is problematic. For example, 2.1 hydraulic modelling and again 2.1 modelling in Hec- Ras. Moreover, there is a section results and discussion and another section discussion and conclusion. This is not a proper structure in a scientific article. First, results, then discussion and final conclusion. Pay attention to this.

4.      Develop figure 1 study area map. Increase the font of the latitudinal and longitude extensions. Also show the location of the river basin in the brand region or country so that the international readers can easily understand the location.

5.      Policy implications of the study may be mentioned in a separate section under discussion.

6.      Future direction of the works are to mentioned clearly.

7.      A more contextualization of the results are required for the global readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: J-1899987

Title: Estimating Flooding at River Spree Floodplain Using HEC-RAS Simulation

OVERVIEW

The manuscript explains the application of the HEC-RAS code to simulate flooding events after river restoration measures and to gain a greater understanding of the theoretical basis and practical application of two-dimensional floodplain modelling. 

GENERAL COMMENTS

The subject matter is actual, interesting and within the scope of the Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal.

The manuscript complies with the journal template and is well structured.

The title describes the manuscript and is appropriate.

The English spelling and grammar may be improved.

As for the rest, I have some suggestions. Please read the specific comments.

In conclusion, I believe this manuscript is interesting and should be improved further. 

In my opinion, the manuscript is worthy of publication after major changes.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Section 2.1: The authors present the equations but do give an insight into the numerical scheme used by HEC-RAS to solve the equations. Please explain briefly the numeric scheme in the manuscript.

Figure 1: Please improve the map in Figure 1. The names of the places cannot be read.

Figure 2: Do not use a print screen and present a table with the flow hydrograph at the upstream section. Please explain how the flood hydrographs were calculated. Do they correspond to an observed flood or are related to a return period? 

Section 3.3.1: where reads “… and other formats. Figure 14 shows the terrain …”. Figure 14 does not exist in the manuscript. Please refer to a figure number that exists in the manuscript.

Table 1: Please explain how the exact values of the coefficients used in the model were obtained. If applicable cite the reference. 

Section 4.1: where reads “desired degree of accuracy (HEC-RAS manual)”, please cite the reverence in the journal format.

Figure 3: Please include a legend in the figure to explain the colours in the riverbank region. 

Table 2: Use the same decimal digits in all flood depths.  

Section 4.2: where reads “Corresponding time step of highest flood depth i.e., 6s can be considered in design purpose to be in the safe side.”. Should read, “… to be on the safe side.”. The maximum depth may not be the most approximate solution. The Courant number was verified across the cells? Please develop and justify further.  

Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: Please improve the plots. There is a figure title. The plot title may be deleted. Some figures have an external border others do not have an external border. The font type in the figures and paragraphs should be the same.  The legend should be in the same place in all the plots.

Section 4.3: where reads “Table represents the detail of dredging and dike construction (Table 5).”, should read “Table 5 represents the detail of dredging and dike construction.”

Table 5: The table refers to the cross-section but there is no figure representing the river schematics and the cross-section numbering. Please include a figure with the river schematics.

Table 5: In the table use the same decimal for each variable according to the respective precision.

Tables 6 and 8: The cross-sections do not represent the connection between the channel (1D) and the floodplain (2D). Please improve the figure to represent the connection and the lateral weir.    

Tables 6 and 8: The flow velocities may be included in the figures.

References: The reference list format must be revised according to the journal template.  

Author Response

Please see the attached file. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version is improved and may be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: J-1899987
Title: Estimating Flooding at River Spree Floodplain Using HEC-RAS Simulation
The authors have attended to the comments on the first revision of the manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript is worthy of publication after a minor change. Please read the specific comments.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Table 6: The table refers to the cross-section numbering in Figure 1 but the cross-section number 3 is not represented in Figure 1.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx