Next Article in Journal
Correction: Gallagher, J.; Gill, L.W. The Life Cycle Environmental Performance of On-Site or Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems for Domestic Homes. Water 2021, 13, 2542
Next Article in Special Issue
Modeling and Risk Analysis of Dam-Break Flooding in a Semi-Arid Montane Watershed: A Case Study of the Yabous Dam, Northeastern Algeria
Previous Article in Journal
Geographical Preference for Installation of Solar Still Water Desalination Technologies in Iran: An Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)-Based Answer
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comment on Aureli et al. Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models. Water 2021, 13, 1968
Reply

Reply to AlQasimi, E.; Mahdi, T.-F. Comment on “Aureli et al. Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models. Water 2021, 13, 1968”

1
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A, 43124 Parma, Italy
2
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, Via Ferrata 3, 27100 Pavia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Karl-Erich Lindenschmidt
Water 2022, 14(2), 267; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14020267
Received: 8 November 2021 / Revised: 15 November 2021 / Accepted: 17 December 2021 / Published: 17 January 2022
This is the reply to the comments by AlQasimi and Mahdi (2022) on the classification attributed to the Lake Ha! Ha! real-field test case by Aureli et al. (2021) in their review of historical dam-break events useful for the validation of dam-break numerical models. While admitting that this test case is affected by the data shortcomings reported by the Discussers, in the authors’ opinion, it should remain included in the group of well-documented test cases due to the large and complete dataset available in digital format. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that the Lake Ha! Ha! case was chosen as a benchmark in the framework of the 2001–2004 IMPACT (Investigation of Extreme Flood Processes and Uncertainty) European project and was then widely used in the literature for the validation of one-dimensional and two-dimensional geomorphic flood models. View Full-Text
Keywords: dam-break modelling; field data; geomorphic floods; Lake Ha! Ha! breakout; test cases; validation dam-break modelling; field data; geomorphic floods; Lake Ha! Ha! breakout; test cases; validation
MDPI and ACS Style

Aureli, F.; Maranzoni, A.; Petaccia, G. Reply to AlQasimi, E.; Mahdi, T.-F. Comment on “Aureli et al. Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models. Water 2021, 13, 1968”. Water 2022, 14, 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14020267

AMA Style

Aureli F, Maranzoni A, Petaccia G. Reply to AlQasimi, E.; Mahdi, T.-F. Comment on “Aureli et al. Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models. Water 2021, 13, 1968”. Water. 2022; 14(2):267. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14020267

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aureli, Francesca, Andrea Maranzoni, and Gabriella Petaccia. 2022. "Reply to AlQasimi, E.; Mahdi, T.-F. Comment on “Aureli et al. Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models. Water 2021, 13, 1968”" Water 14, no. 2: 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14020267

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop