This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Mergili M, Benedikt M, Krenn J, Fischer J, Pudasaini SP.2016. r.avaflow & r.randomwalk: two complementary and comprehensive open source GIS simulation tools for the propagation of rapid geophysical mass flows. PeerJ Preprints4:e2224v2https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2224v2
We present two GIS model applications for simulating the propagation of rapid geophysical mass flows: r.avaflow employs an advanced physically-based two phase flow model intended for in-detail case studies, r.randomwalk a conceptual model suitable for studies at various scales. Both tools are implemented in open source software environments serving for the needs of both research and practice. They offer a range of visualization, validation, parameter sensitivity analysis and parameter optimization functions. Some of the key functionalities of both tools are demonstrated for the Acheron rock avalanche in New Zealand.
The preprint has been reformatted according to OGRS2016 template.
The manuscript describe a couple of software for the simulation of rapid geophysical mass flow. Both of them are Open Source and both of them are made available through a dedicated web page. Moreover they are made available as modules for one of the leading existing open source GIS (GRASS GIS) or as stand-alone codes. This make the software interesting both for scientists and professionals. The GRASS GIS version, for scientists, is made using an efficient mixture of C, python and R and is suitable for PeerJ Computer Science, in particular for the subjects concerning “Spatial and Geographic Information Systems” and “Scientific Computing and Simulation”. Even if some parts of the software have been already discussed in other journals this manuscript proves to be relevant since it performs a comparative description of the two models. Given the limits to the maximum lengths of the manuscripts for the OGRS2016 symposium, authors do not had enough space for the description of the usecase using both the modules. In fact only the r.randomwalk calibration has been described. I think that expanding the manuscript with a full comparison of the results obtained also using r.avaflow and r.randomwalk on a chosen test area will be of certain interest for PeerJ Computer Science journal.