The authors have developed the modelled dynamics of drifting and grounding/grounded icebergs, with close attention to realism, in particular the evidence from scouring. In the former instance, the pressure gradient force for drifting bergs is more correctly separated into barotropic and baroclinic parts. In the latter case, with a focus on the topographic obstacle that is Bear Ridge in the Amundsen Sea, more extensive improvements to the NEMO-ICB model configuration are outlined. The attention to dynamical detail is impressive, most notably representation of the force balance for a grounded (and ungrounded) berg. The authors outline in considerable detail the additional forces and accelerations, based on clear fundamental physics, with just a degree of uncertainty in the coefficients of Coulomb friction.

The manuscript is succinctly written throughout. The Introduction (Sect. 1) clearly motivates the model development presented here, with a view to the wider system ice-ocean-climate system. Sect. 2 provides thorough background information on the character of seafloor and sediments, or relevance to grounding. Sect. 3 provides a detailed outline of the existing model equations and developments thereof, model configuration and experimental design. In the Results (Sect. 4), well-crafted figures convey a rich level of information, in particular the wind roses that summarise the strength and relative orientation of accelerations and forces, and the summary force balances (given typically small net accelerations). Sect. 5 provides a brief summary and discussion, pointing towards new modelling possibilities now that the basis is provided for more realistic representation of tabular bergs near Antarctica, specifically the consequences of grounding for sea ice, hydrography and even feedback on the calving process. I close with the following technical comments:

Technical Comments:

1. ‘Equations’ 9, 10, 12-16 are actually terms or relations; either refer to these as such in the main text, or formally make these equations; likewise (27) is a set of proportionalities, not equations
2. 6 caption: typo - ‘small’ rather than ‘smalls’
3. Line 797: typo – ‘or’ not ‘of’?

In this manuscript, Y Kostov and co-authors present an updated grounding representation for icebergs in the NEMO ocean model, as well as improvements to how iceberg drift is computed. 

The paper is very well written and structured, clearly illustrated, and the subject matter is a natural fit for The Cryosphere. I believe this work presents substantive steps forward in the representation of icebergs in models and I am looking forward to seeing how these changes will improve future iceberg modeling efforts. 

In light of this I recommend the paper for publication after revisions, with my comments detailed below. (Please note that some of these comments are musings rather than requests for edits, arising largely because I am fascinated by this topic. Relatedly, I am keenly aware that I refer to my own papers quite a lot in my comments - which is mostly just a consequence of being most familiar with those and not a request for citations).

General Comments:

1)  My most substantial comment is that I do wonder whether the paper may benefit from being split into 2 separate articles: one on grounding and one on drift dynamics. My reasons for suggesting this are two-fold: 

i) The paper is quite long and it is at points hard to keep track of all the different pieces (see also a similar comment by the editor). 

ii) The paper consists of two fairly independent components: the grounding parameterization and the free drift analysis and improvements. While the grounding work is more developed in the manuscript as it stands I would argue that there is plenty of material to expand the drift analysis into its own paper (without too much extra work). Such a split could streamline the presentation in a number of ways, for example, you wouldn't have to bring in the MEDIUM icebergs at all for the grounding work. I do think a split would also help the impact of the work - other modeling groups may be more likely to pick up on the improvements in grounding when this is presented in a more focused way.

Having made this case, I happily leave it to the authors and the editor what to do about it.

2)  There are a few passages where I thought text could be shortened somewhat. I have highlighted those in the attached pdf. 

3)  It would be helpful to early on provide a short discussion of the types of icebergs that get stuck on Bear Ridge with typical sizes and approximate numbers. While reading the paper, I somehow assumed there would be only a handful of large tabular icebergs at a given time, until I got to Appendix A and realized you are mostly talking about ~hundreds of fairly small icebergs. Relatedly, I would recommend picking one of the images from the timelapse movie (ideally one with very clear sea ice differences on the two sides of the "wall of icebergs", e.g., timestamp 2:15 of the movie), annotate this, and combine it with figure 1, to provide the reader early on with a sense of the general setup. These images are rather striking.

4)  The manuscript is largely focused on grounding, however, I'd argue that the subsequent ungrounding is also important. [As a side note: Reading the paper I was wondering whether ungrounding is primarily the result of melting (and potentially capsizing), or rather changes in ocean current/wind direction? This is not a focus of this work, but if you have any insight I'd be interested to hear it.]

While I agree with the authors' choice to focus on the novel representation of the grounding process, I do think it would be helpful to also discuss ungrounding and the role of melting. Two things came to mind: 

- First, as far as I know the melt model in NEMO-ICB contains a dependence of basal melt on the relative velocity between the iceberg and the ocean current at the height of the iceberg base (Merino et al, 2016, eq 2). I wonder how this plays out for grounded icebergs in the latest version? Lines 871/872 make it sounds like this is not the case in the current model formulation? The dependence on the size of the iceberg is evident as well in the Merino et al. formulation. I'm likely missing something, but maybe this paragraph could be reworded and/or clarified?

- Second, freely floating icebergs typically erode much faster on the side walls due to wave erosion (~1 m/d) than the base (~0.1 m/d) - see, e.g., Wagner & Eisenman (GRL, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071645). In that case you might expect that icebergs shrink laterally until the aspect ratio becomes unstable and they become ungrounded by capsizing (as the authors mention). This may be particularly relevant for the smaller icebergs found all over Bear Ridge. However, since for grounded icebergs the relative basal velocity is higher, maybe the thinning is substantially faster than for freely floating ones, which might entail that capsizing isn't that important after all. Would it be easy to check how often ungrounding in the model coincides with capsizing? I appreciate that a detailed analysis of these processes is beyond the scope of this study, but I do think it would be helpful to comment on how melt is represented in the model, and to at least mention some of the considerations above. 

5)  It was my understanding that the original NEMO-ICB used the erroneous capsizing criterion of Bigg et al (2017). We published a correction to this in Wagner et al (Ocean Modeling, 2017,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.07.003) and I discussed this briefly with Bob Marsh back then but never followed up. I just want to make sure the capsizing errors have been fixed, if there ever were any.

Specific comments:

A number of mostly minor and technical comments are provided as annotations to the attached pdf. 

Dear authors - I am often wrong, and if you think that any of my comments are misguided please reach out to me and I'll be eager to amend my review. 

Till Wagner