Debris Flow Risk Assessment for the Large-Scale Temporary Work Site of Railways—A Case Study of Jinjia Gully, Tianquan County
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe content of this paper is too extensive and broad, with too many methods employed, leading to a lack of focus. This style of writing resembles a project report more than an academic journal article. What are the innovative aspects of the paper? What specific problems does it aim to address?
Here are some specific suggestions:
1. The abstract is not concise and focused enough. Lines 10-14 spend too much time discussing the background of the study and abruptly start discussing the content of this paper without addressing the current issues related to this topic, which lacks academic logic.
2. Please pay attention to the standard use of abbreviations, such as IPCC, and check that abbreviations throughout the text are used correctly.
3. Line 101: "The One of the Tunnel Camp is located in the southwestern part of …" Please be aware of the capitalization and formatting issues displayed here.
4. Figure 1 should include a north arrow.
5. The term "Basin" should refer to a larger area, yet Figure 1 depicts a very small area. I am unsure about the size of the Jinjia Gully basin as mentioned by the authors. Please verify the extent of the Jinjia Gully basin and confirm if the Jinjia Gully debris flow studied in this paper is located in just a part of the Jinjia Gully basin. If so, many terms and descriptions in the text, including the title of Figure 1, need to be revised.
6. Why use the natural breaks method for classification in Figure 3? For the purpose of comparing the three maps (abc), wouldn't it be more appropriate to use absolute values for classification breaks?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper adopts numerical and physical simulation methods to conduct risk assessment of temporary construction sites, and the methods used have certain rationality, which has reference significance and practical value for similar site evaluations. Suggest major revision for the following questions before accept:
(1) The article mentions the issue of overlap between temporary engineering site selection and geological hazard risk areas, but does not delve into the potential follow-up effects of such overlap, such as the frequency, scope, and potential socio-economic impacts of geological hazards such as mudslides. In the paper, specific information such as the construction period and the scale of temporary construction sites should be defined clearly.
(2) The article attempts to explain the reasons for selecting temporary engineering sites, the importance of risk assessment, and the basis of previous research. For example, when introducing the use of flat and open areas formed by debris flows as the preferred location for temporary projects, the discussion suddenly shifted towards the standardization of the construction of the Sichuan Tibet Railway, lacking the necessary transition. Meanwhile, the abbreviation "TEM" does not provide a clear definition and can be supplemented appropriately.
(3) It was mentioned that the region is affected by the subtropical monsoon climate, but the characteristics of this climate type and its potential impact on temporary projects were not further described.
(4) In Chapter 5- Revised Indicator Factor Evaluation Methods: There are shortcomings in experimental design and data processing, some experimental details lack clear explanations, and data processing and analysis methods are not explained in detail. In addition, the universality of the experimental results is questionable, and inferring the universality of the results based solely on data from one demonstration point may not be sufficient. There are also shortcomings in model validation, making it difficult to evaluate the reliability and effectiveness of the model.
(5) In the risk assessment of large-scale temporary engineering, the definition and classification criteria of risk levels are unclear, making it difficult for readers to accurately understand the differences between different risk levels.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper performs Debris-flow susceptibility assessment using deep learning algorithms with GeoDetector for factor optimizations in the Xiaojiang River watershed in the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, where debris flows frequently occur.
The paper is generally well-written, scientifically sound and covers well the subject. The reviewer believes that the paper will be improved if the following are performed:
-The title of the paper must include the region studied.
-Compare the findings of the present work (e.g. major factors affecting the results) to previous similar studies, such as the previous work by Di et al (2019), referenced in the work.
-Describe the mechanical process of Debris-Flow instability. In this aspect, the reviewer recommends to study and reference the papers given below. Critical obtained parameters can be compared with parameters affecting the mechanical process
-So figures quality must be improved because letters are not easily readable (e.g. Figs 3, 9, 13)
REFERENCES
Di B, CA Stamatopoulos, AC Stamatopoulos, E Liu, L Balla. 2021, Proposal, application and partial validation of a simplified expression evaluating the stability of sandy slopes under rainfall conditions. Geomorphology 395, 107966
Take, W.A., Bolton, M.D., Wong, P.C.P., Yeung, F.J., 2004. Evaluation of landslide triggering mechanisms in model fill slopes. Landslides 1(3), 173–184.
Lambe T.W. and Whitman R., 1969. Soil Mechanics, MIT, Wiley, New York. (CHAPTER on soil stability with flow)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author solved the problems raised, but the new Table 10 and Table 11 are too long. You can consider putting them in the appendix.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
