the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An integrated method for assessing vulnerability of buildings caused by debris flows in mountainous areas
Abstract. The vulnerability assessment of buildings in future scenarios is critical to decrease potential losses caused by debris flows in mountainous areas due to the complex topographical condition that could increase the environmental vulnerability to climate change. However, the lack of reliable methods limits the accurate estimation of physical damage and the associated economic loss. Therefore, an integrated method of physical vulnerability matrix and machine learning model was developed to benefit the estimation of damage degree of buildings caused by a future debris-flow event. By considering the building structures (reinforced-concrete (RC) frame and non-RC frame), spatial positions between buildings and the debris-flow channels (horizontal distance (HD) and vertical distance (VD)), and impact pressure (Pt) to buildings, a physical vulnerability matrix was proposed to link physical damage with the four factors. In order to overcome the difficulty in estimating the possible impact pressure to buildings, an ensemble machine learning (ML) model (XGBoost) was developed with the involvement of geological factors. Additionally, the HD and VD were decided based on the satellite images. The Longxihe Basin, Sichuan, China was selected as a case study. The results show that the ML model can achieve a reliable impact pressure prediction because the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) values are 9.53 %, 3.78 kPa, and 2.47 kPa. Furthermore, 13.9 % of buildings in the Longxihe Basin may suffer severe damage caused by a future debris-flow event, and the highest economic loss is found in a residential building, reaching 5.1×105 €. Overall, our work can provide scientific support for the site selection of future constructions.
- Preprint
(3971 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-156', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Sep 2024
Thanks for inviting me to review this paper, named ‘An integrated method for assessing vulnerability of buildings caused by debris flows in mountainous areas’. The topic is interesting, and the whole manuscript is well-written. However, I feel that there are still some questions needs to be further addressed before it can be accepted for publication in NHESS. Therefore, a minor revision is suggested. The detailed comments are listed below.
- Page 7, Eq. (1). It’s better to define Vpfirst before it appears in your manuscript.
- Page 8, line 115. Please be attention with your writing. It should be ‘As suggested by Jakob et al. (2012) and Kang and Kim (2016)’.
- Page 8, line 122. I think it’s better to add a reference to support your statement that ‘the moderate slope gradient and frictional resistance would decrease the kinetic energy of travelling mass’.
- Page 8, line 129, Eq. (2). Please clarify what hstands for? It is mean flow depth or the maximum flow depth? And also the debris-flow velocity, v.
- Page 8, line 134. Same question that you need to define Qpand then use Qp to represent a physical parameter.
- Page 9, line 145. I think the final equation of Ptis missing, which is represented by debris-flow volume and channel gradient.
- Page 12, line 220. Please explainthat how you estimate the impact pressure of 30 kPa to the damaged buildings? Additionally, how do the authors define that ‘buildings stay undamaged’? Do you mean there is no damage to the building wall and the structure ? Do you involve the furniture or household appliances and equipment into your analysis since they also belong to properties.
- Page 16, line 263. Is there is difference between the maximum flow depth (h) here and the flow depth in Eq. (2) ? Please be clear with the definitions in your manuscript.
- Page 16, Line 265. Please indicate that whether the height of building is involved into the elevation calculation.
- Page 18, line 290. Please indicate the ratio of a training set and validation set.
- Page 20, line 327. Please indicate the satellite image that you used to extract the buildings since readers need to know the resolution of your satellite images, which may cause uncertainty of physical vulnerability estimation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xueyu Geng, 25 Sep 2024
Many thanks for your recognition and also your comments for us to improve our work. We sincerely hope the revised manuscript could meet the publication standard of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. The responses to the proposed comments has been included in the attached word file. Thanks again.
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Sep 2024
The authors have addressed all my comments, I have no further comments. I recommend it for publication.
best
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-RC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Xueyu Geng, 17 Oct 2024
Thank you so much for your recognition.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Xueyu Geng, 17 Oct 2024
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2024-156', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2024
The paper titled "An integrated method for assessing vulnerability of buildings caused by debris flows in mountainous areas" presents an interesting approach. The authors employ a machine learning model to estimate the potential impact pressure of debris flows on buildings. Additionally, they develop a physical vulnerability matrix that accounts for factors including building structure, spatial positioning, and impact pressure. The machine learning model produces reliable results with relatively low error. The study's estimates of economic loss offer valuable scientific insights for decision-makers and residents. I recommend a minor revision to further enhance the paper.
Specific comments:
- Page 5 L82-84 “The formation of terrain in this area …” Please provide relevant references.
- Page 6 Figure 1. This flowchart outlines the core of your methodology and presents a significant amount of information. However, the current figure lacks clarity. For instance, what do the different colors represent? Additionally, terms such as the GridSearch algorithm, n_estimators, and learning_rate, etc., are not clearly explained, either in the figure caption or elsewhere in the manuscript.
- Page 7 Figure 2. It would be clearer for readers if different colors were used to distinguish the debris flow events in each dataset.
- Page 8 Eq. 3. How do you determine channel gradient J as it varies along the channel.
- Page 9 L154. The elevation resolution for VD is also 0.8 m?
- Page 12 Eq. 13 and Page 19 L296. How do you obtain the actual value of impact pressure for the calculation of MAPE?
- Page 20 L314. Where is the data source of the economic loss?
- Page 21 Figure 9. It would be helpful to indicate the precise locations of sub-figures a, b, d, and e within sub-figure c. Why is the color representing buildings brown in sub-figure c, while it is yellow in the other sub-figures?
Technical corrections:
- Page 9 L150. Viscose debris flows should be viscous debris flows?
- Page 12 L213. yire should be yipre?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xueyu Geng, 25 Sep 2024
We sincerely value your feedback aimed at enhancing our paper. In response, we have addressed each of your comments in a detailed manner. We extend our gratitude for the time you dedicated to revising our work, as it has significantly contributed to the paper's improvement. The responses to the comments have been included in the attached pdf file. Thanks a lot.
-
RC4: 'Comment on nhess-2024-156', Anonymous Referee #3, 08 Oct 2024
Thank you for inviting me to review the paper titled "An Integrated Method for Assessing the Vulnerability of Buildings to Debris Flows in Mountainous Areas." The paper introduces an intriguing approach, utilizing a machine learning model to predict the impact pressure of debris flows on buildings, while also creating a physical vulnerability matrix that incorporates factors such as building structure, spatial location, and impact pressure. The study's estimates of economic losses provide potential for valuable insights for both decision-makers and local communities -- suggesting a possible application for real-world impact. That being said, I have a few minor revisions to help enhance clarity of the paper:
Line 105: Please explicitly define damage degree. Is it the vulnerability matrix? A more explicit statement of that in the beginning of 2.1 would be clarifying. Line 155: Please elaborate on the fishnet tool and what it does briefly, beyond it’s purpose for your methods
Page 6, Figure 1: please explain variables and their names more explicitly, especially in the GridSearch algorithm section. Also, please indicate choice of colors and corresponding meaningsFigures 7- 12: Please offer a more descriptive caption of the figures
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-RC4 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC4', Xueyu Geng, 09 Oct 2024
We sincerely thank your comments aimed at enhancing our paper. In response, we have addressed each of your comments. We extend our gratitude for the time you dedicated to revising our work, as it has significantly contributed to the paper's improvement. The responses to the comments have been included in the attached pdf file, named 'Responses to comments of Reviewer 3'.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC4', Xueyu Geng, 09 Oct 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-156', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Sep 2024
Thanks for inviting me to review this paper, named ‘An integrated method for assessing vulnerability of buildings caused by debris flows in mountainous areas’. The topic is interesting, and the whole manuscript is well-written. However, I feel that there are still some questions needs to be further addressed before it can be accepted for publication in NHESS. Therefore, a minor revision is suggested. The detailed comments are listed below.
- Page 7, Eq. (1). It’s better to define Vpfirst before it appears in your manuscript.
- Page 8, line 115. Please be attention with your writing. It should be ‘As suggested by Jakob et al. (2012) and Kang and Kim (2016)’.
- Page 8, line 122. I think it’s better to add a reference to support your statement that ‘the moderate slope gradient and frictional resistance would decrease the kinetic energy of travelling mass’.
- Page 8, line 129, Eq. (2). Please clarify what hstands for? It is mean flow depth or the maximum flow depth? And also the debris-flow velocity, v.
- Page 8, line 134. Same question that you need to define Qpand then use Qp to represent a physical parameter.
- Page 9, line 145. I think the final equation of Ptis missing, which is represented by debris-flow volume and channel gradient.
- Page 12, line 220. Please explainthat how you estimate the impact pressure of 30 kPa to the damaged buildings? Additionally, how do the authors define that ‘buildings stay undamaged’? Do you mean there is no damage to the building wall and the structure ? Do you involve the furniture or household appliances and equipment into your analysis since they also belong to properties.
- Page 16, line 263. Is there is difference between the maximum flow depth (h) here and the flow depth in Eq. (2) ? Please be clear with the definitions in your manuscript.
- Page 16, Line 265. Please indicate that whether the height of building is involved into the elevation calculation.
- Page 18, line 290. Please indicate the ratio of a training set and validation set.
- Page 20, line 327. Please indicate the satellite image that you used to extract the buildings since readers need to know the resolution of your satellite images, which may cause uncertainty of physical vulnerability estimation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xueyu Geng, 25 Sep 2024
Many thanks for your recognition and also your comments for us to improve our work. We sincerely hope the revised manuscript could meet the publication standard of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. The responses to the proposed comments has been included in the attached word file. Thanks again.
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Sep 2024
The authors have addressed all my comments, I have no further comments. I recommend it for publication.
best
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-RC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Xueyu Geng, 17 Oct 2024
Thank you so much for your recognition.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Xueyu Geng, 17 Oct 2024
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2024-156', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2024
The paper titled "An integrated method for assessing vulnerability of buildings caused by debris flows in mountainous areas" presents an interesting approach. The authors employ a machine learning model to estimate the potential impact pressure of debris flows on buildings. Additionally, they develop a physical vulnerability matrix that accounts for factors including building structure, spatial positioning, and impact pressure. The machine learning model produces reliable results with relatively low error. The study's estimates of economic loss offer valuable scientific insights for decision-makers and residents. I recommend a minor revision to further enhance the paper.
Specific comments:
- Page 5 L82-84 “The formation of terrain in this area …” Please provide relevant references.
- Page 6 Figure 1. This flowchart outlines the core of your methodology and presents a significant amount of information. However, the current figure lacks clarity. For instance, what do the different colors represent? Additionally, terms such as the GridSearch algorithm, n_estimators, and learning_rate, etc., are not clearly explained, either in the figure caption or elsewhere in the manuscript.
- Page 7 Figure 2. It would be clearer for readers if different colors were used to distinguish the debris flow events in each dataset.
- Page 8 Eq. 3. How do you determine channel gradient J as it varies along the channel.
- Page 9 L154. The elevation resolution for VD is also 0.8 m?
- Page 12 Eq. 13 and Page 19 L296. How do you obtain the actual value of impact pressure for the calculation of MAPE?
- Page 20 L314. Where is the data source of the economic loss?
- Page 21 Figure 9. It would be helpful to indicate the precise locations of sub-figures a, b, d, and e within sub-figure c. Why is the color representing buildings brown in sub-figure c, while it is yellow in the other sub-figures?
Technical corrections:
- Page 9 L150. Viscose debris flows should be viscous debris flows?
- Page 12 L213. yire should be yipre?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xueyu Geng, 25 Sep 2024
We sincerely value your feedback aimed at enhancing our paper. In response, we have addressed each of your comments in a detailed manner. We extend our gratitude for the time you dedicated to revising our work, as it has significantly contributed to the paper's improvement. The responses to the comments have been included in the attached pdf file. Thanks a lot.
-
RC4: 'Comment on nhess-2024-156', Anonymous Referee #3, 08 Oct 2024
Thank you for inviting me to review the paper titled "An Integrated Method for Assessing the Vulnerability of Buildings to Debris Flows in Mountainous Areas." The paper introduces an intriguing approach, utilizing a machine learning model to predict the impact pressure of debris flows on buildings, while also creating a physical vulnerability matrix that incorporates factors such as building structure, spatial location, and impact pressure. The study's estimates of economic losses provide potential for valuable insights for both decision-makers and local communities -- suggesting a possible application for real-world impact. That being said, I have a few minor revisions to help enhance clarity of the paper:
Line 105: Please explicitly define damage degree. Is it the vulnerability matrix? A more explicit statement of that in the beginning of 2.1 would be clarifying. Line 155: Please elaborate on the fishnet tool and what it does briefly, beyond it’s purpose for your methods
Page 6, Figure 1: please explain variables and their names more explicitly, especially in the GridSearch algorithm section. Also, please indicate choice of colors and corresponding meaningsFigures 7- 12: Please offer a more descriptive caption of the figures
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-156-RC4 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC4', Xueyu Geng, 09 Oct 2024
We sincerely thank your comments aimed at enhancing our paper. In response, we have addressed each of your comments. We extend our gratitude for the time you dedicated to revising our work, as it has significantly contributed to the paper's improvement. The responses to the comments have been included in the attached pdf file, named 'Responses to comments of Reviewer 3'.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC4', Xueyu Geng, 09 Oct 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
261 | 54 | 492 | 807 | 8 | 3 |
- HTML: 261
- PDF: 54
- XML: 492
- Total: 807
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1