Modeling Dam Break Events Using Shallow Water Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript actually has a potential to the knowledge development of dam-break modeling. However, it has a lot of things to be improved. Looking at to the writing, Authors should pay more attention on how to present the big idea of this study, urgency this research to be conducted, specific objective, state of the art of particular knowledge development, and discussion on the findings. Coding can be part of the manuscript but should not dominate the key points to be delivered as the study is aimed to discussed in more detail about the modeling of dam-break using shallow water equations. Detail comments on the manuscript are given in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer for the detailed review that allowed to focus on mode important information that were partly missing from the report. One aspect that in our opinion is still missing is a complete methodology validation through a detailed code-to-code comparison or verification with real cases. This should be the objective of a future study.
Enclosed here a version of the paper with track changes performed to respiond to the observations of the reviewer/
PS: I sent an email to the reviewer with details on a dam break calculations for Indonesia for whcihi we could perform a code-to-code comparison. In case he is interested he can contact me.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I had the pleasure of reading and reviewing your manuscript entitled "Modelling Dam Break Events Using Shallow Water Model". The research is well thought out, the structure of the manuscript is good, the figures are very good, in general, you have written a very good scientific paper.
As a reviewer, I have no objections or suggestions for changes or additions to your work.
Best regards.
Author Response
Thanks for the review done
Reviewer 3 Report
The present work treats about a modelling of dam break events using shallow water model. The main handicap is that the model was not validated by the authors. They simply lead to some references about the validation of the model. Nevertheless, the work can be useful for the scientific community and thus I recommend to publish it subjected to the following modifications:
- Review the citation of references. The editorial suggests to employ [1], [2], [3], etc.
- Improve the introduction section with a state of the art about the related literature. More references must be included and a critical analysis about them.
A review of the English language is recommended.
Author Response
I tried to include as much as possible changes to the paper to fulfll the observations done. Thanks a lot for your review
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version has considered most required information. One thing that should be further explained is how the opening is modelled. Based on the selected case study, the dam-break process is initiated by the soil erosion at the downstream. It becomes important since the opening process will affect the timing. Other thing, please do mention if the over-spilling is included in the computation or ignored.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your coments. Indeed the opening mode (instantaneous) was not mentioned in the paper. I added a paragraph to say it.
Also the overspilling (not present in the test calculation) is not considered but it could be in principle added in the NAMIDANCE code. Also for this a paragraph has been added.
A series of further references have been added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction has been improved but it is not enough. More references must be cited and a critical analysis about them.
Author Response
Dear colleague, We have elarged the description, tryingto focus more on the objectve of this type of Emergency calculations, that is different from the ' normal' risk assessment calculation as you need to provide a continous calculation (i.e. tropical cyclones) or a 'quick-and-dirty' estimation of the potentially affected area. As we could not find a simiar type of analysis we could not add many more references that could show a similar type of work.
Nevertheless we have added many new references to the NAMIDANCE code that were missing in the first submission.
We hope to fulfill as such the expectations .
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors have provide sufficient information on the issue of break opening process. The manuscript can be further proceeded.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you
