Modeling interactions between tides, storm surges, and river discharges in the Kapuas River delta
- 1Earth and Life Institute (ELI), Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1348, Belgium
- 2Department of Physics, Fakultas MIPA, Universitas Tanjungpura, Pontianak, 78124, Indonesia
- 3Pontianak Maritime Meteorological Station, Pontianak, 78111, Indonesia
- 4Institute of Mechanics, Materials and Civil Engineering (IMMC), Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1348, Belgium
- 1Earth and Life Institute (ELI), Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1348, Belgium
- 2Department of Physics, Fakultas MIPA, Universitas Tanjungpura, Pontianak, 78124, Indonesia
- 3Pontianak Maritime Meteorological Station, Pontianak, 78111, Indonesia
- 4Institute of Mechanics, Materials and Civil Engineering (IMMC), Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1348, Belgium
Abstract. The Kapuas River delta is a unique estuary system on the west coast of Borneo Island, Indonesia. Its hydrodynamics is driven by an interplay between storm surges, tides, and rivers discharge. These interactions are likely to be exacerbated by global warming, leading to more frequent compound flooding in the area. The mechanisms driving compound flooding events in the Kapuas River Delta remain, however, poorly known. Here we attempt to fill this gap by assessing the interactions between river discharges, tides, and storm surges and how they can drive a compound inundation over the riverbanks, particularly within Pontianak, the main city along the Kapuas River. We simulated these interactions using the multi-scale hydrodynamic model SLIM. Our model correctly reproduces the Kapuas River’s hydrodynamics and its interactions with tides and storm surge from the Karimata Strait. We considered several extreme scenario test cases to evaluate the impact of tide-storm-discharge interactions on the maximum water level profile from the river mouth to the upstream part of the river. Based on the maximum water level profiles, we could divide the main branch of the Kapuas River’s stream into three zones, i.e., the tidally-dominated region (from the river mouth to about 4 km upstream), the mixed-energy region (from about 4 km to about 30 km upstream) and the river-dominated region (beyond 30 km upstream). Thus, the local water management can define proper mitigation for handling compound flooding hazards along the riverbanks by using this zoning category. The model also successfully reproduced a compound inundation event in Pontianak, which occurred on 29 December 2018. For this event, the wind-generated surge appeared to be the dominant trigger.
Joko Sampurno et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on bg-2021-273', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Dec 2021
The manuscript describes the results of the numerical simulations of the Kapuas River’s hydrodynamics and its interaction with the Karimata Strait Tides and wind surges based on SLIM model. Several extreme events scenarios were simulated assessing the consequences of the extreme water level along the Kapuas Kecil river. The main branch of the Kapuas River was differentiated into 3 regions based on the behavior of the maximum water levels (MXWL) along the stream. The manuscript addresses relevant questions and is characterized by a fluent language. The authors have done a large work in preparation of the setup and its validation. However, the analysis of the results is not always performed correctly (e.g., the differentiation into the zones is done based on only MXVL behavior in a setup with a full forcing, without accounting of the river bed area). Also, it can be significantly improved without too much additional work. Therefore, I would suggest a major revision, please, find the detailed comments below.
Page 2, 63: can better represent.
Page 5:
Tidal forcing: The source of the tidal signal at the open boundary is missing. How many harmonics did you use?
Wind forcing: The link/source to/of the observed wind velocity is missing. By the way, at which height are the wind data provided by ERA5 and meteorological station?
River forcing: Not clear when the observational data are available and for which rivers. Please, clarify.
Setup: If it is possible, please, create a Table, where you describe all experiments (discharge rate, wind forcing).
Page 6, 165: What about P1 harmonic? It should be important for the area. Please, give some information about higher harmonics – MO3 and MK3, they would show how well your wetting/drying scheme is working.
Page 6, 180-189: Please, provide the coordinates of the stations.
Page 7, 195-206: I doubt very much about MXVL analysis and zones defining procedure, especially if we consider mixed energy region. Such behavior of MXWL may signalize about larger river bed area and not about tidal impact. You can, for example, find a difference between MXVL and mean level within the tidal cycle at each location. If this difference is small, it means that the behavior of MXVL can be largely explained by a variation in river bed area. Another strategy is to run experiment with only river forcing and then find a difference between MXVL levels in experiments with tidal and river forcing and with only river forcing.
Page 8, 253: ‘we simulated it but did not show the result here’ -> ‘not shown’
Figure 5: DISCHARGE-> Discharge. The axis font size is too small. ‘Note that the Kapuas …. discharge.’ – I would remove this sentence from the caption.
Figure 7: The phases and amplitudes diverge larger from the observational data than they do at the river mouth. What do you think is major reason for that?
Tables A1, A2: The ->the, ‘Mouth’->’mouth’. Please, add P1, MO3, MK3. Please, add coordinates of the stations.
Figure 8: I think should be re-drawn, see the comments above.
Figure 9: Honestly, I do not understand the dynamical processes behind such a variation in MXVL in first zone (0-4km) within different wind scenarios. It looks artificial. Can you give some explanation? I think it would be very helpful and also add a value to the paper, if you include the maps for each wind scenario for the considered area. You can show the MXWL (within the tidal cycle) difference for the run with wind and tidal+river forcing and with only tidal+river forcing.
Figure 12: The axis font is hard to read, it is too small. Just a curiosity: what will be with the results, if you decrease 2 times h*?
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joko Sampurno, 23 Jan 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2021-273/bg-2021-273-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joko Sampurno, 23 Jan 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on bg-2021-273', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Dec 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joko Sampurno, 23 Jan 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on bg-2021-273', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Dec 2021
The manuscript describes the results of the numerical simulations of the Kapuas River’s hydrodynamics and its interaction with the Karimata Strait Tides and wind surges based on SLIM model. Several extreme events scenarios were simulated assessing the consequences of the extreme water level along the Kapuas Kecil river. The main branch of the Kapuas River was differentiated into 3 regions based on the behavior of the maximum water levels (MXWL) along the stream. The manuscript addresses relevant questions and is characterized by a fluent language. The authors have done a large work in preparation of the setup and its validation. However, the analysis of the results is not always performed correctly (e.g., the differentiation into the zones is done based on only MXVL behavior in a setup with a full forcing, without accounting of the river bed area). Also, it can be significantly improved without too much additional work. Therefore, I would suggest a major revision, please, find the detailed comments below.
Page 2, 63: can better represent.
Page 5:
Tidal forcing: The source of the tidal signal at the open boundary is missing. How many harmonics did you use?
Wind forcing: The link/source to/of the observed wind velocity is missing. By the way, at which height are the wind data provided by ERA5 and meteorological station?
River forcing: Not clear when the observational data are available and for which rivers. Please, clarify.
Setup: If it is possible, please, create a Table, where you describe all experiments (discharge rate, wind forcing).
Page 6, 165: What about P1 harmonic? It should be important for the area. Please, give some information about higher harmonics – MO3 and MK3, they would show how well your wetting/drying scheme is working.
Page 6, 180-189: Please, provide the coordinates of the stations.
Page 7, 195-206: I doubt very much about MXVL analysis and zones defining procedure, especially if we consider mixed energy region. Such behavior of MXWL may signalize about larger river bed area and not about tidal impact. You can, for example, find a difference between MXVL and mean level within the tidal cycle at each location. If this difference is small, it means that the behavior of MXVL can be largely explained by a variation in river bed area. Another strategy is to run experiment with only river forcing and then find a difference between MXVL levels in experiments with tidal and river forcing and with only river forcing.
Page 8, 253: ‘we simulated it but did not show the result here’ -> ‘not shown’
Figure 5: DISCHARGE-> Discharge. The axis font size is too small. ‘Note that the Kapuas …. discharge.’ – I would remove this sentence from the caption.
Figure 7: The phases and amplitudes diverge larger from the observational data than they do at the river mouth. What do you think is major reason for that?
Tables A1, A2: The ->the, ‘Mouth’->’mouth’. Please, add P1, MO3, MK3. Please, add coordinates of the stations.
Figure 8: I think should be re-drawn, see the comments above.
Figure 9: Honestly, I do not understand the dynamical processes behind such a variation in MXVL in first zone (0-4km) within different wind scenarios. It looks artificial. Can you give some explanation? I think it would be very helpful and also add a value to the paper, if you include the maps for each wind scenario for the considered area. You can show the MXWL (within the tidal cycle) difference for the run with wind and tidal+river forcing and with only tidal+river forcing.
Figure 12: The axis font is hard to read, it is too small. Just a curiosity: what will be with the results, if you decrease 2 times h*?
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joko Sampurno, 23 Jan 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2021-273/bg-2021-273-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joko Sampurno, 23 Jan 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on bg-2021-273', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Dec 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joko Sampurno, 23 Jan 2022
Joko Sampurno et al.
Joko Sampurno et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
487 | 100 | 14 | 601 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 487
- PDF: 100
- XML: 14
- Total: 601
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1