the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Numerical analysis of dynamics between debris flows and wave propagation using multi-layer shallow water equations
Abstract. Landslides and debris flows are significant disasters that frequently occur on hillslopes, often resulting in casualties and property damage when they take place near residential areas. Specifically, in regions with dams or reservoirs, landslides and debris flows can raise the top of dead storage, reducing the effective storage capacity of these facilities. Additionally, debris flows entering reservoirs can generate tsunami-type waves, potentially leading to overflow-induced flooding and the collapse of hydraulic structures. Numerical modeling has been widely employed to mitigate such disasters. However, most studies utilized three-dimensional hydrodynamics or smoothed particle hydrodynamics, focusing primarily on laboratory-scale events without considering critical processes such as erosion, entrainment, and deposition. These processes are essential for accurately simulating debris flow dynamics. To address these limitations, this study developed a multi-layer dynamics simulation model based on shallow water equations that consider erosion, entrainment, and deposition mechanics, enabling the analysis of field-scale events. The model's performance was validated through theoretical and laboratory experiments. The 2020 Sanyang Reservoir collapse event in South Korea was selected as a case study to evaluate the model's applicability. Scenario-based analyses were conducted, considering debris flow characteristics and reservoir water level conditions, to explore various potential outcomes. The results highlighted the correlation between debris flow momentum and wave scale, with the maximum momentum of the debris flow identified as a strong predictor of the wave's magnitude.
- Preprint
(5001 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4896 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1383', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Sep 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Seungjun Lee, 24 Sep 2025
First of all, we would like to thank all referees for their constructive and insightful reviews. The manuscript has greatly benefited from their comments, and we truly appreciate the recognition of its scientific and applied relevance. In the following, we provide a point-by-point response to all comments, with our replies highlighted in blue for clarity. For convenience, all responses have also been compiled into a single PDF document.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Seungjun Lee, 24 Sep 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1383', Matteo Barbini, 16 Mar 2026
I appreciate the topic addressed in this paper, specifically the interaction between debris flows and reservoirs. The consideration of two flow layers with different rheological behaviors, combined with entrainment and deposition processes, represents an interesting problem. The paper is generally well-written from a technical standpoint. However, I have significant concerns about the scientific novelty and validation rigor, which limit its contribution to the research community.
The development of a one-dimensional two-layer model combining shallow water equations with Voellmy rheology and simplified erosion-deposition processes is not novel for a research contribution. Furthermore, the motivation for developing a monodimensional model is not specified in the text. In particular, when studying the effect of debris flow entry into a reservoir and the resulting wave generation and propagation, the topography in the transversal direction can play a crucial role in the amplification or attenuation of wave amplitude and water level oscillations.
The validation strategy has critical gaps that undermine confidence in the model's reliability. The authors introduce erosion, entrainment, and deposition processes in the model and state that these are "essential for accurately simulating debris flow dynamics". However, in the manuscript, there is no validation or calibration of these processes. Additionally, the authors refer to three processes while in the equations only two are mathematically represented. Authors should clearly define each process from both a physical and mathematical perspective and validate them separately. In addition, they could describe the interaction between the propagation model and the deposition and erosion processes as factors that influence the rheological parameters.
The paper, before conducting the modeling, requires an accurate analysis of the event for proper calibration of the rheology and erosion-deposition model parameters. In the results section a great spread in wave amplitude associated with rheology parameter variations is shown, and it is not clear which are the most plausible Sanyang scenarios for the reservoir. In this manner, the work is only a numerical test with a foregone conclusion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1383-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Seungjun Lee, 23 Mar 2026
We would like to thank the referee for the constructive and insightful comments. The manuscript has greatly benefited from these suggestions, and we sincerely appreciate the referee’s recognition of its scientific and practical relevance. In the following, we provide a point-by-point response to all comments, with our responses highlighted in blue for clarity. For convenience, the full set of responses has also been compiled into a single PDF document with movie S2.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Seungjun Lee, 23 Mar 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 827 | 296 | 31 | 1,154 | 57 | 25 | 52 |
- HTML: 827
- PDF: 296
- XML: 31
- Total: 1,154
- Supplement: 57
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 52
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments:
Landslides or debris flows rushing into reservoirs can cause surges and pose damage to dams. The manuscript uses the so-called multi-layer shallow water equations to model the interaction between debris flows and water, and numerically solves them using 1-D FVM. Although the model and method is verified in the experiments and the simulation of the 2020 Sanyang Reservoir collapse event, there are some issues that need to be considered. First, the authors mention landslides and debris flows in the introduction and aim to study the reservoir collapse event caused by landslide–debris flows. Landslides and debris flows are two different kinds of mass movements that may describe by different equations. In the left part, the authors only establish the governing equations of debris flows. Second, there is a distinct interface between debris flows and their intruding water in an ideal scenario. In most cases, debris flows would mix strongly with water. The interface between layers is not clear, and the multi-layer model has limited capability to analyze the dynamic process. Third, the novelty is not enough and the conclusions are trivial.. 1-D dimensional simulation and conventional algorithm FVM are common. Assumption of the constant erosion and deposition rates is simple. Overall, the manuscript presents a conventional study and can be improved greatly by addressing these issues.
Specific comments:
1. Introduction: What is the meaning of “landslide-debris flow”? landslide and debris flow, or debris flow transformed from landslide?
2. Introduction: “Despite the potential for large-scale complex hazards caused by landslide–debris flow events in dam/reservoir basins, they have received less attention and research than urban areas.” I disagree with it. There are many studies and references related to this subject.
3. Introduction: “without considering critical processes such as erosion, entrainment, and deposition”?? Many studies consider erosion, entrainment, and deposition, such as Cao, Z., Pender, G., Wallis, S., & Carling, P. (2004). Computational dam-break hydraulics over erodible sediment bed. Journal of hydraulic engineering, 130(7), 689-703. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004)13; Iverson, R. M., & Ouyang, C. (2015). Entrainment of bed material by Earth‐surface mass flows: Review and reformulation of depth‐integrated theory. Reviews of geophysics, 53(1), 27-58. https:// doi.org/10.1002/2013 RG000447; Pudasaini, S. P., & Fischer, J. T. (2020). A mechanical erosion model for two-phase mass flows. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 132, 103416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2020.103416.; Baggio, T., Mergili, M., & D'Agostino, V. (2021). Advances in the simulation of debris flow erosion: The case study of the Rio Gere (Italy) event of the 4th August 2017. Geomorphology, 381, 107664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107664
4. P4: Eq.1, Is the x direction normal with the slope or vertical with the earth surface? What is z in the last term? Bed elevation?
5. P4: Eq.1 Why does the momentum equation of debris flow not include the loss or gain of momentum due to erosion or deposition.
6. P6: The authors describe their numerical scheme in three pages. If the UDCHR scheme are the same with the original reference, maybe the authors could make this section more concise.
7. P6: “the constant erosion-entrainment rate; dz/dtd is the constant deposition rate” The erosion-entrainment rate is not constant. It depends flow depth, velocity, and other factors such as channel slope, bed composition.
8. P11: Voellmy miu = 0.15, zeta = 50, fint = 10. “In this context, the value of zeta is significantly lower than those used in previous studies while fint is notably higher”. Why is the value significantly lower than previous studies? How to explain it?
9. Table 1: how to determine the values of tau_e and tau_d? how to get the density of debris flows? By field survey?
10. Figure 4: The labels (a) (b) should be fig5.a, fig5.b. What kinds of the dam? It looks like an earthen dam.
11. From Figure 4 and 5, there are actually traces of bank landslides. But we are not sure whether the debris flows happened. Can you provide more pictures or evidence?
12. L295: Figures 8a and 8b? maybe Figures 5a and 5b.
13. Figure 6c: it is longitudinal section, not cross-section.
14. L315: Are all of slopes > 40 degree the landslide area?
15. L325: how to determine the initial depth or volume of debris flows?