the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Understanding rockfalls along the national road G318 in China: from source area identification to hazard probability simulation
Abstract. Rockfall hazard is frequent along the national road (G318) in west Hubei, China. To understand the distribution and potential hazard probability, this study combines the result of a 3-years engineering geological investigation, statistical modeling, and kinemics-based method to identify risky road sections. Rockfall hazard probability is calculated by integrating spatial, temporal, size probability, and reaching probabilities of source areas. Rockfall source areas are preliminarily identified first by slope angle threshold (SAT) analysis. Random Forest model (RFM) and multivariate logistic regression model (MLRM) are then applied and compared to get the final susceptible source areas, considering eight factors, including slope, aspect, elevation, lithology, joint density, slope structure, land-use type, distance to the road. Temporal and size probability of source areas are separately obtained by Poisson distribution and power-law distribution theory. An important parameter (reach angle) for rockfall trajectory simulation was determined by back analysis in Flow-R and validated by field investigation. The results show good fitness with the measurements by field investigation. In the conditions of 5, 20, and 50 years return period, potential risky road sections are found out under two size scenarios (larger than 1 000 m3, 10 000 m3). This research helps the local government to completely understand the rock falls from source area existence and potential risk to roads.
- Preprint
(4481 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-303', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2022
This paper is the application of several existing methodologies to a given case study. I don’t recommend publication of this paper for the following reasons : 1) it does not fit the requirements for the scientific paper since I did not identified scientific novelty, 2) the relevance of the complete approach is questionable.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-303-RC2 -
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anonymous Referee #3, 14 Jan 2022
This paper presents a concoction of standard methods in rockfall hazard analysis and does not contain a substantial contribution to science. The reviewer can concur with the recommendations of RC2 and the assessment of RC1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-303-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anonymous Referee #3, 14 Jan 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-303', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2022
This paper is the application of several existing methodologies to a given case study. I don’t recommend publication of this paper for the following reasons : 1) it does not fit the requirements for the scientific paper since I did not identified scientific novelty, 2) the relevance of the complete approach is questionable.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-303-RC2 -
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anonymous Referee #3, 14 Jan 2022
This paper presents a concoction of standard methods in rockfall hazard analysis and does not contain a substantial contribution to science. The reviewer can concur with the recommendations of RC2 and the assessment of RC1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-303-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anonymous Referee #3, 14 Jan 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', yu Zhao, 10 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-303/nhess-2021-303-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2022
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
765 | 389 | 62 | 1,216 | 47 | 41 |
- HTML: 765
- PDF: 389
- XML: 62
- Total: 1,216
- BibTeX: 47
- EndNote: 41
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1