Hazard assessment comparison of Tazhiping landslide before and after treatment using the finite-volume method

Huang, Dong; Jiang, Yuan Jun; Qiao, Jian Ping; Wang, Meng

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1611-2017

Articles | Volume 17, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1611-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1611-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 9

Research article

|

22 Sep 2017

Research article |

| 22 Sep 2017

Hazard assessment comparison of Tazhiping landslide before and after treatment using the finite-volume method

Dong Huang, Yuan Jun Jiang, Jian Ping Qiao, and Meng Wang

Download

Final revised paper (published on 22 Sep 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 10 Jan 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of "Hazard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment" by Huang D. et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Mar 2017
- AC1: 'Hazard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment', DONG HUANG, 28 Apr 2017
- AC5: 'Correct AC: Hazard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment', DONG HUANG, 28 Apr 2017
RC2: 'Comment on "Hazard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment"', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Mar 2017
- AC2: 'Hazard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment', DONG HUANG, 28 Apr 2017
  - AC3: 'azard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment', DONG HUANG, 28 Apr 2017
- AC6: 'Correct AC: Hazard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment', DONG HUANG, 28 Apr 2017
- AC8: 'Hazard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment', DONG HUANG, 28 Jun 2017
AC4: 'Hazard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment', DONG HUANG, 28 Apr 2017
AC7: 'Hazard Assessment Comparison of Tazhiping Landslide Before and After Treatment', DONG HUANG, 28 Jun 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (06 May 2017) by Thomas Glade

AR by DONG HUANG on behalf of the Authors (08 May 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (20 May 2017) by Thomas Glade

AR by DONG HUANG on behalf of the Authors (28 Jun 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Jul 2017) by Thomas Glade

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (11 Jul 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear authors
You followed the indications given by both reviewers and you corrected and improved your manuscript accordingly. Most of the questions are answered and changes and completions are made.
But the paper is still of fair quality only. Some information is given in the wrong chapters. You talk about "confusion" in the chapter "Conclusions and discussion" but your revision does not really solve the problem. Please introduce these points in the "Introduction"!
The content of the manuscript is now more or less OK. All necessary information is given. Figures could still be improved. The comparion between pre and post treatment results could be solved easly introducing some additional lines of main results from the pre simulations in the figures of the post simulations (e.g. with a dotted dark line or similar).

Abstract: 3 times "adopted", poor linguistic quality, please reformulate and improve.

Introduction: still not enough information to avoid the confusion that the authors mention in the Conclusions and discussions. Please introduce these points mentioned in the chapter "Conclusions and discussion" here.
p.2, line 58: why not move this information to the section "Empirical prediction method"?

Methods: I somewhat miss information about the method used to do the hazard prediction and the evaluation of the dynamic interaction with buildings. Shouldn't that be introduced here?

Study area and data:
Fig. 4: What defines the blue outline of the landslide area. Is this perimeter based on field survey?

Results:
I miss a proper comparison between model result and reality, e.g. outline of the landslide indicated in fig. 7
A comparision between the two situations would be interesting.
p13, line 283: delete "speed" and check blanks between words in the line above

Conclusions and discussion:
I propose to move lines 373 - 380 to the Introduction (and repeat it partially in the conclusions). This would help to avoid the confusion about the mass movement process that is discussed in the Methods section.
Also, the section about the selection of model parameters has to be introduced much earlyer. This is the motivation for this paper and has to be mentioned in the Introduction.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (14 Jul 2017) by Thomas Glade

AR by DONG HUANG on behalf of the Authors (26 Jul 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Aug 2017) by Thomas Glade

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (11 Aug 2017)

ED: Publish as is (13 Aug 2017) by Thomas Glade

AR by DONG HUANG on behalf of the Authors (16 Aug 2017) Manuscript

Download

The requested paper has a corresponding corrigendum published. Please read the corrigendum first before downloading the article.

Article (12628 KB)
Full-text XML