Debris-flow modeling at Meretschibach and Bondasca catchments, Switzerland: sensitivity testing of field-data-based  entrainment model

Frank, Florian; McArdell, Brian W.; Oggier, Nicole; Baer, Patrick; Christen, Marc; Vieli, Andreas

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-801-2017

Articles | Volume 17, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-801-2017

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-801-2017

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

Articles | Volume 17, issue 5

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

01 Jun 2017

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 01 Jun 2017

Debris-flow modeling at Meretschibach and Bondasca catchments, Switzerland: sensitivity testing of field-data-based entrainment model

Florian Frank, Brian W. McArdell, Nicole Oggier, Patrick Baer, Marc Christen, and Andreas Vieli

Download

Final revised paper (published on 01 Jun 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Sep 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comments', Zheng Han, 21 Oct 2016
- AC1: 'Interactive comment on “Debris flow modeling at Meretschibach and Bondasca catchments, Switzerland: sensitivity testing of field data-based erosion model” by F. Frank, B.W. McArdell, N. Oggier, P. Baer, M. Christen and A. Vieli', Florian Frank, 08 Feb 2017
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jan 2017
- AC2: 'Interactive comment on “Debris flow modeling at Meretschibach and Bondasca catchments, Switzerland: sensitivity testing of field data-based erosion model”', Florian Frank, 08 Feb 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) (24 Feb 2017) by Margreth Keiler

Dear Florian and colleagues,

Thank you very much for the detailed response to the comments of the reviewers and the suggestion how you want to address these issues in the revision of the manuscript. Summarizing the comments of the reviewer the main revision will include:
• Better explanation and proofing of your choice for certain empirical parameters,
• Improve explanation of modelling results, indicating possible limitations of the model
• Discussing the transferability of your parameter choice to other catchments.
Both reviewers indicate parts of the manuscript where further explanations or clarifications of terms are needed. Thus, I ask and encourage you to include all comments in the revision of your manuscript as you already indicated in the interactive response.

I have following suggestion to some of your response how you want to deal with the comments:
• Reviewer 1, general comment: additionally, provide also a short review on theoretical concepts explaining this behavior and how it is related to your model
• Reviewer 1: Page 6, 195-196.: I think just deleting the sentence is not a good solution. You have to explain your choice for the parameter of internal friction, It seems that you did not used the typical criteria for Voellmy friction
• Reviewer 1: Page 7, 221-222.: please add the suggested figure
• Reviewer 2: Page 1, lines 23-24.: provide a better reasoning for your calibration procedure and highlighting also the pro and cons of the chosen procedure

Furthermore, the next steps are to prepare one response file (as .pdf) including (1) comments from referees/public, (2) author's response, and (3) author's changes in manuscript. Regarding author's changes, a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf including the author's response must be submitted. Additionally, you have to upload the new version of the manuscript (see also Please consider therefore the guidelines of the NHESS procedure again (http://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html#interactivepublicdiscussion).
The revised version will be reviewed by one reviewer and the editor. If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]

Hide

AR by Florian Frank on behalf of the Authors (30 Mar 2017)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Apr 2017) by Margreth Keiler

RR by Zheng Han (20 Apr 2017)

ED: Publish as is (22 Apr 2017) by Margreth Keiler

AR by Florian Frank on behalf of the Authors (27 Apr 2017)

Short summary

This study describes a sensitivity analysis of the RAMMS debris-flow entrainment model, which is intended to help solve problems related to predicting the runout of debris flows. The results indicate that the entrainment model predicts plausible erosion volumes in comparison with field data. These eroded volumes are sensitive to the initial landslide volume, suggesting that this tool may be useful for both reconstruction of historical events and modeling of debris flow scenarios.