A Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation Model of Sediment Deposition in a Storage Reservoir Subject to Water Withdrawal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Below are some points for the authors to look into and check
|
No |
line |
Current |
Required |
|
1 |
122 |
Figure 1 (a) |
The Range of the ground level (DEM) data in figure 1 is required. |
|
2 |
130 |
Figure 1 (b) |
The flow direction arrow is required near the pumping station. |
|
3 |
Eq (3) |
|
|
|
4 |
215 |
is the rate of sediment of ith fraction transport (M/L/T); |
is the sediment transport of ith fraction;
|
|
5 |
Eq (4) |
|
|
|
6 |
340 |
Table 3. shows ……….. reservoir in comparison to 3600sec. time step as a reference time. |
Why the time steps 3600s considered as a reference time? |
|
7 |
|
|
What is the range of the water head (level) operation of the station? Please add it in the station description. |
|
|
|
|
|
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your comments that improved our paper.
The response is as shown below.
Best regards.
The responses of reviewer’s-1 comments.
|
Lines or comment in previous version |
Reviewer’s Comments |
Authors’ responces |
|
122 |
Figure 1 (a) The Range of the ground level (DEM) data is required. |
Done |
|
130 |
Figure 1 (b) the flow direction arrow near the pumping station is required |
Done |
|
Eq (3) |
Check |
|
|
215 |
is the rate of sediment of ith fraction transport (M/L/T) |
is the dimensionless sediment concentration transport of ith fraction (L3/L3), |
|
Eq (4) |
|
Checked |
|
340 |
Why the time steps 3600s considered as a reference time? |
All the presented results were dependent on time steps 3600 sec, this time steps gave reasonable results. So all other considered time steps were compared with it. |
|
|
What is the range of the water head (level) operation of the station? . |
The range of operation head of the station is between 5m, at 305 m.a.s.l. (minimum reservoir operation level) to 30m at 330m.a.s.l. (normal reservoir operation level). This added to the manuscript |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed most of the matters I raised, so the paper is now suitable for publication, subject to some minor corrections (listed below by line number).
12 Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model was..
13 (Mosul Dam Reservoir, Iraq)
15 option (SSIIM)
21 was also tested.
32 In dam reservoirs,
29-91 [the formatting – alignment of left edge – looks different here]
79-80 was applied to the Angostura..deposition [8].
86-87 the SSIIM model was applied to predict..dredging [13].
92 inside intakes and/or
231-233 has been applied to estimate the daily.. around it [26, 27].
247 Furthermore, a previous study
257 and carried sediment load
292, 294 km3 needs superscript
334 could be considered constant during
344 main reason for this
410 m3 needs superscript
515 This can be considered a model weakness, as it may perform less well in some locations
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your comments that improved our paper.
The response is as shown below.
Best regards.
The responses of reviewer’s-1 comments.
|
Lines or comment in previous version |
Reviewer’s Comments |
Authors’ responces |
|
122 |
Figure 1 (a) The Range of the ground level (DEM) data is required. |
Done |
|
130 |
Figure 1 (b) the flow direction arrow near the pumping station is required |
Done |
|
Eq (3) |
Check |
|
|
215 |
is the rate of sediment of ith fraction transport (M/L/T) |
is the dimensionless sediment concentration transport of ith fraction (L3/L3), |
|
Eq (4) |
|
Checked |
|
340 |
Why the time steps 3600s considered as a reference time? |
All the presented results were dependent on time steps 3600 sec, this time steps gave reasonable results. So all other considered time steps were compared with it. |
|
|
What is the range of the water head (level) operation of the station? . |
The range of operation head of the station is between 5m, at 305 m.a.s.l. (minimum reservoir operation level) to 30m at 330m.a.s.l. (normal reservoir operation level). This added to the manuscript |
The responses of reviewer’s-2 comments.
|
Lines or comment in previous version |
Reviewer’s Comments |
Authors’ responces |
|
12 |
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model was |
Done |
|
13 |
(Mosul Dam Reservoir, Iraq) |
Done |
|
15 |
option (SSIIM) |
Done |
|
21 |
was also tested |
Done |
|
32 |
In dam reservoirs, |
|
|
29-91 |
[the formatting – alignment of left edge – looks different here] |
Done |
|
79-80 |
was applied to the Angostura..deposition |
Done |
|
86-87 |
the SSIIM model was applied to predict..dredging [13]. |
Done |
|
92 |
inside intakes and/or |
Done |
|
231-233 |
has been applied to estimate the daily.. around it [26, 27]. |
Done |
|
247 |
Furthermore, a previous study |
Done |
|
257 |
and carried sediment load |
Done |
|
292, 294 |
km3 needs superscript |
Done |
|
334 |
could be considered constant during |
Done |
|
344 |
main reason for this |
Done |
|
410 |
m3 needs superscript |
Done |
|
515 |
This can be considered a model weakness, as it may perform less well in some locations |
Done |
|
|
|
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear colleague
Your paper is a relevant contribution but I suggest some updates with the figures and the text as your paper can be more visible with all the suggested changes. Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your comments that improved our paper.
The response is as shown below.
Best regards.
The responses of reviewer’s-1 comments.
|
Lines or comment in previous version |
Reviewer’s Comments |
Authors’ responces |
|
122 |
Figure 1 (a) The Range of the ground level (DEM) data is required. |
Done |
|
130 |
Figure 1 (b) the flow direction arrow near the pumping station is required |
Done |
|
Eq (3) |
Check |
|
|
215 |
is the rate of sediment of ith fraction transport (M/L/T) |
is the dimensionless sediment concentration transport of ith fraction (L3/L3), |
|
Eq (4) |
|
Checked |
|
340 |
Why the time steps 3600s considered as a reference time? |
All the presented results were dependent on time steps 3600 sec, this time steps gave reasonable results. So all other considered time steps were compared with it. |
|
|
What is the range of the water head (level) operation of the station? . |
The range of operation head of the station is between 5m, at 305 m.a.s.l. (minimum reservoir operation level) to 30m at 330m.a.s.l. (normal reservoir operation level). This added to the manuscript |
The responses of reviewer’s-3 comments.
|
Lines or comment in previous version |
Reviewer’s Comments |
Authors’ responces |
|
|
Some relatives papers asked to add them |
A number of papers have been added to the introduction in more than one site. All highlighted in yellow. |
|
Figure 1 (a) |
Remove 0” |
Done |
|
Figures (2), (4a) and (4b) |
I suggest to use color |
Done |
|
Figures 3,(a,b,c and d) |
The frames are not necessary |
Removed |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article ‘A CFD Simulation model of sediment deposition in a storage reservoir subject to water withdraw’ deals with a computational fluid dynamics model taking into account flow and bed movement in a full-scale dam. The authors Mohammad E. Mohammad, Nadhir Al-Ansari, Sven Knutsson and Jan Laue explain their work in different parts:
Introduction in which they highlight the supremacy of numerical models compared to physical models (I do not agree with that) Site description CFD model Data and model setup Model validation Results and discussion ConclusionsThe article is well written but to me some informations are missing about the CFD model. The authors say that they simulated the period 1986 – 2011, which is an enormous time period for a CFD model. More details should be given about this point. Moreover, the authors say that their model is good, which is true for some points (but not all). I think that we should be less peremptory.
Please find below my detailed comments.
Page 2 line 49: “The high capacity and speed of modern 49 computers have made numerical modelling, such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models 50 for open channels flow, rivers, lakes, and different water bodies, more applicable than physical 51 models.”>> I do not agree with this sentence. Numerical models are more and more efficient, this is true, but we are still needing physical modelling, especially for complex phenomena that numerical models cannot well reproduce now (for example scour near bridges that CFD models with classical turbulence models such as k-epsilon or k-omega models fail to completely well simulate… and many others). Even if this study highlights relatively good agreement between simulated results and experimental results, I think that we should be less peremptory (the results are for example not so good for the 4th section).
Page 5 line 194: I think that ‘e’ means ‘epsilon’. It would be better to write ‘ε’ or ‘epsilon’.
Page 5 lines 197 and 198: this is not the same symbol in the text and in the equation for the eddy viscosity.
Page 6: was a grid sensitivity carried out? What is the number of cells?
Page 7: were the calculations performed for the period 1986 – 2011? This is enormous for a 3D model! How is it possible? What is the timestep (approximately)? How long does the calculation take? In what type of computer?
To conclude, this article is good and highlights the good capacity of CFD models to simulate complex flows involving sediment transport and deposition. I recommend acceptation with major revision.
Author Response
The responses of reviewer’s-1 comments.
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your comments that improved our paper.
Below is the response for the comments.
Thank you again.
Best regards.
Nadhir Al-Ansari
Corresponding author
|
Lines or comment |
Reviewer’s Comments |
Authors’ responces |
|
Page-2 Lines, 49,50 and 51 |
Page 2 line 49: “The high capacity and speed of modern computers have made numerical (CFD) models for open channels flow, rivers, lakes, and different water bodies, more applicable than physical models.” “I do not agree with this sentence”. |
The statement was changed and highlighted in green. Lines 50-58, in the revised copy. |
|
Page-5 Line 194 |
standard k-e |
Has been changed to: standard k-ε |
|
Page 5 lines 197 and 198 |
This is not the same symbol in the text and in the equation for the eddy viscosity. |
The symbol, Υ was removed |
|
Page 6 |
Was a grid sensitivity carried out? What is the number of cells? |
Due to huge reservoir size, (the surface area is 375km2) and long period of simulation (1986-2011), the study doesn’t consider finer grid or grid sensitivity, furthermore the computational time for considered grid size is about 80hr. A previous study (Agrawal, A., K. 2005) which considered the same model (SSIIM) mentioned that the using of fine geometry mesh did not give significant changes in the results, but the computational time highly increased. A paragraph has been added in lines 268-272 and highlighted in green.
The considered number of cells ware mentioned in lines 257-268 in the revised copy, (highlighted in green). |
|
Page 7: |
Were the calculations performed for the period 1986 – 2011? This is enormous for a 3D model! How is it possible? What is the time step (approximately)? How long does the calculation take? In what type of computer? |
The model operated on Dell precision tower 5820 workstation desktop computer at Luleå University of Technology. The considered time step is 3600 seconds including 20 inner iteration for each main iteration. The total computation time is about 80 hr.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A 3D numerical simulation of sediment deposition in a reservoir using SSIIM is described. The model is applied to a particular case study (Mosul Dam) and the results validated against field data. It is shown that the model gives accurate results, except in areas subject to slope slips (not modelled). While this is a useful piece of work, and done well, it is rather limited in that it is focussed on demonstrating that the model works for a particular case, in there is little attempt to draw more general insights. There are also a number of errors in the writing that need attention before the paper would be suitable for publication, listed by line number below.
10 [Abstract should contain a mention of the location of the case study.]
12 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model was applied
12 water withdrawal
14 [SSIIM needs to be spelt out for first mention in Abstract.]
20 indicate good performance
21 of the model in predicting
30 In dam reservoirs
36 , and their operation schedules, [insert second comma]
40 operational efficiency [and several other places]
61 and later [in various places you give names of reservoirs but not their country – need to include country, e.g. Dashidaira, Hamidieh, Jeziorsko, etc.]
62 [need to spell out SSIIM on first mention in main text (not later)]
66 and later [the formulation “studied by [5]” or “The study in [6]” is inelegant – rewrite so that the [ref] appears at the end of a sentence or clause, also refs [7, 12, 14, 15, 16]]
73 satisfactory [not fine]
76 locations.. A reasonable result
106 northern Iraq
139 and withdrawal flow towards
145 [on Figure 2 show the locations of the intake channels]
169-170 a 3-D model is considered more suitable than 1D or 2D models.
202 onwards [the order here is confusing, you talk about the division into sediment load and bed load twice, with the more general description coming second – lines 211-212 – re arrange and rewrite so that you talk about the division of loads and then the corresponding equations.]
240 recorded
245-246 [incorrect referencing style, you’ve used [numbers] elsewhere]
Conclusions – the result that the model doesn’t work so well where there are slips is important, and actually a useful outcome of the paper. Perhaps point this out, and suggest how such models might be improved to take account of this shortcoming.
Author Response
The responses of reviewer’s-2 comments.
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your comments that improved our paper.
Below is the response for the comments.
Thank you again.
Best regards.
Nadhir Al-Ansari
Corresponding author
|
Lines or comment |
Reviewer’s Comments |
Authors’ responce |
|
Line 10 |
Abstract should contain a mention of the location of the case study. |
The location of the studied area was added to the abstract. (highlighted in green) |
|
Line 12 |
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model was applied |
Done, highlighted in green. |
|
Line 12 |
water withdrawal |
Done, highlighted in green. Also the main title was changed to “withdrawal” |
|
Line 14 |
SSIIM needs to be spelt out for first mention in the Abstract |
Done, highlighted in green. |
|
Line 20 |
indicate good performance |
Done, highlighted in green. |
|
Line 21 |
of the model in predicting |
Done, highlighted in green. |
|
Line 30 |
In dam reservoirs |
Done, highlighted in green. |
|
Line 36 |
and their operation schedules, |
Done, highlighted in green. |
|
Line 40 Line 42 Line 516 |
operational efficiency |
Done, highlighted in green. |
|
Line 61 Line 65 Line 74 Line 80 Line 85 Line 89 |
[in various places you give names of reservoirs but not their country – need to include country ] |
Done on different locations, highlighted in green. |
|
Line 62 |
[need to spell out SSIIM on first mention in main text (not later)] |
Done in first mention (highlighted in green) and removed from line 62. |
|
Line 66 and later |
[the formulation “studied by [5]” or “The study in [6]” is inelegant – rewrite so that the [ref] appears at the end of a sentence or clause, also refs [7, 12, 14, 15, 16] |
Done, highlighted in green |
|
Line 73 |
satisfactory [not fine] |
Done, highlighted in green |
|
Line 76 |
locations.. A reasonable result |
Done, highlighted in green |
|
Line 106 |
northern Iraq |
Done, highlighted in green |
|
Line 139 |
and withdrawal flow towards |
Done, highlighted in green |
|
Line 145 |
[on Figure 2 show the locations of the intake channels] |
Done |
|
Lines169-170 |
a 3-D model is considered more suitable than 1D or 2D models |
Done, highlighted in green |
|
Line 202 |
onwards [the order here is confusing, you talk about the division into sediment load and bed load twice, with the more general description coming second – lines 211-212 – re arrange and rewrite so that you talk about the division of loads and then the corresponding equations.] |
I fully agree with this comment, it was confusing. This part was rearranged and highlighted in green. |
|
Line 240 |
recorded |
Done, highlighted in green |
|
Lines 245-245 |
Incorrect reference style |
Done, highlighted in green |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
