the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 11 Jun 2025
Assessment of the vulnerability of buildings destroyed during postfire debris flow events in Kule village, Yajiang County, China
Abstract. Debris flows are frequently triggered by rainstorms after wildfires and pose severe threats to the lives of downstream residents and buildings in mountainous regions. However, there has been limited focus on developing a comprehensive framework to assess the physical vulnerability of buildings to postfire debris flows. This study presents a quantitative approach for establishing a physical vulnerability model on the basis of the observed building damage features and simulated debris flow intensity values. Detailed field surveys were conducted in Kule village, Yajiang County, to analyse the characteristics of postfire debris flows and establish a building damage database. Numerical simulations using the FLO-2D model were performed to reproduce the debris flow process and quantify the debris flow intensity, including the flow depth, flow velocity, impact pressure, momentum flux, overturning moment, and relative burial height. Physical vulnerability curves were developed for brick–concrete buildings and compared with those obtained in previous studies, and the differences in vulnerability curves, intensity indicators, and functional models were examined. The results revealed that the lognormal cumulative distribution function (LNCDF) model provides the highest statistical significance in terms of the relative error and prediction accuracy. The momentum flux demonstrated greater sensitivity in distinguishing different damage categories, whereas the impact pressure provided more precise vulnerability index predictions. The proposed physical vulnerability model can be used to evaluate the structural resistance of buildings to debris flows in wildfire-affected areas, thus providing a systematic foundation for formulating risk management and mitigation strategies.
- Preprint
(5111 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-772', wei wang, 26 Jun 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Jiangang Chen, 28 Jun 2025
reply
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate your positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. Thank you very much for your recognition our manuscript, and for considering our article interesting and suitable. Thank you very much for providing valuable suggestions to help us improve the manuscript. After studying the comments carefully, we have made every effort to respond and revise your professional guidance and suggestions. If there are any suggestions in the future, we are very willing to make timely modifications. Our primary task is to meet the standards of the journal, and we sincerely hope that this research can be considered. We would like to express our great appreciation once again to you for comments and recognition on our paper. For detailed point-by-point responses and modifications, please refer to the supplementary materials.
Sincerely yours
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Jiangang Chen, 28 Jun 2025
reply
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-772', Xiaogang Guo, 10 Jul 2025
reply
This is an interesting and valuable paper on debris flow disaster mitigation in mountainous regions. It contributes meaningfully to enhancing disaster prevention and mitigation capabilities in these areas. The study offers important insights into advancing post-fire debris flow assessments, refining vulnerability models, and guiding emergency evacuation strategies. I sincerely appreciate the authors for sharing such inspiring and impactful work. Overall, the work is quite detailed, but it needs to improve the conciseness and logic of its expression, the following is several comments and suggestions that may help improve the manuscript.
Abstract
- Lines 21-22, the background and research questions are too disconnected, lacking a summary of the current state of research within a broader context, which would help highlight the existing research gaps.
- Authors emphasize using the quantitative approach, but the results did not show any number or quantitative result. Please give the quantitative description.
- In theabstract, authors should highlight the significance of this research.
Introduction
- Lines 42-66, Shorten the introduction to highlight the current status of the research in this paper and the problems that need to be solved. Directly point out why the debris flow disasters after wildfiresare worthy of being focused on and then the vulnerability is significant…
- Line 57: Suggest changing "continuous curve" to "monotonically increasing curve".
- Line 75, means “previous study”?
- Lines 77-98, please use the logic sentences to connect your reviewing work, don’t list the researchers one-by-one. And you should finallyconclude why you choose FLO-2D to simulate.
- Line 88: It is suggested to clarify that the "relative intensity" here refers to "relative burial height". This can be consistent with the article.
- Lines 137-144: This paragraph in the introduction should not be treated as a separate paragraph and should be added to the end of the previous paragraph as a follow-up explanation. It is recommended to adjust it.
- Line 138: Suggest changing "thereby burning"to ", burning".
Study area
- Authors should pay attention to the paper framework: introduction, methods and materials, results, discussion, conclusion. So, studyarea should be in the section of Methods and materials. And I suggest combine study area and field investigation section.
- Line 191, please provide the right information of China map, change it.
- Line 269, as for the 2.3 Debris flow peak dischargecalculation, please give the main formula and list the derivation process to the Supplementary file.
- Line 213 (Fig 3): Capitalize "Flo-2D" consistently as "FLO-2D" in text within the figure.
- Lines 240-242: I suggest changing the expression of slope here. Generally, slope is described as steep or gentle.Suggest replacing “high” and “lower” with “steeper” and “gentler”.
- Line 326: Please clearly define nas Manning's coefficient and use the symbol "n" to express it uniformly in Eq. 7.
- Line 326: Similarly, please clearly define K in Eq. 7.
- Line 399: Suggest changing 'power law' to 'power-law'.
- Line 405:Please define "V" explicitly in Eq. 15 is " vulnerability value (0-1)".
Results
- Line 426:Please add the annotation "in G1 gully" to the title of Figure 7.
- Line 463: What’s the meaningof P = 2?
- Lines 484-642: I greatly appreciate the author's extensive and in-depth exploration in the discussion section. They have done a lot of meaningful and commendable work on different indicators of debris flow intensity and vulnerability functions, as well as comparisons with previous research. This can provide important reference value for future researchers.
Discussion
- In the section 5.1, authors should shorten the pages, just focus on the simulation result, don’t show the calculation process, and don’t list 3 subtitles.
- Change the order of 5.1.4 and 5.2; limitation and future work should be a separate
- Lines 490-523 & Fig 13-14: In-depth comparative analysis of intensity indicators (sensitivity vs. precision) is highly valuable and a key contribution.
- Table 5, The expression in the second column is inaccurate. Please modify it. Adjust the format of the content in the table.
- Lines 587-589: I suggest simplifying the expression of this paragraph and changing it to “Table 6 provides the existing vulnerability function models, including Logical, Weibull, Exponential, LNCDF and Avrami functions”.
- Line 643: The authors' honest discussion of limitations enhances this excellent paper. I commend their approach to complex challenges and anticipate future work.
- Lines 689: These suggestions on emergency response and evacuation strategies for disasters are valuable for local residents.
- 17, Modify the display legend of the elevation.
Conclusion and references
- Line 772:Add DOI number to references.
- Check the “Figure”or “Fig” used in the paper, the format should be uniform. Unify the format of the tables in the full paper.
- Further refine the conclusion section.
- Line 745, revise the author’s names.
- Check the references’style, just like “-” and “–”, the space in the middle of the name abbreviation.
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Jiangang Chen, 21 Jul 2025
reply
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
We are sincerely grateful for your constructive feedback on our manuscript (egusphere-2025-772) and your recognition of its value. We deeply appreciate your thoughtful comments and actionable suggestions, which are instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work. The praise and positive feedback you provided are a great honor and significant encouragement to our team. We have carefully addressed all reviewer comments through thorough revisions to meet the journal's standards. Should any further suggestions arise, we remain fully committed to making timely modifications. Our primary goal is to ensure the manuscript aligns with the journal's expectations, and we hope it merits favorable consideration.
Firstly, we are truly honored and grateful that you found our study "interesting and valuable" for advancing debris flow disaster mitigation in mountainous regions. Your recognition that it meaningfully contributes to enhancing disaster prevention capabilities and offers important insights into post-fire debris flow assessments, vulnerability modeling, and emergency evacuation strategies is incredibly motivating. We especially appreciate your kind acknowledgment of the study's impact and detailed nature. We greatly appreciate your recognition and high praise of our discussion section and the proposed emergency responses. We fully agree with your assessment that promoting this work as a reference for future research is worthwhile, and we are pleased that you see its potential value for local residents.
Secondly, we sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions for improving the manuscript. Following your guidance, we have carefully revised and supplemented the relevant sections. Once again, we extend our profound gratitude for your insightful review and endorsement.
Finally, thank you once again for your valuable suggestions and recognition, which have significantly strengthened our study. Should any omissions remain in our revisions, we would welcome your further corrections. Please accept our profound gratitude for your mentorship throughout this revision process. Our point-by-point responses and detailed modifications are provided in the supplementary materials.
Sincerely yours,
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-772', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Aug 2025
reply
This is an interesting and valuable paper on post-fire debris flow disaster in mountainous regions. After I carefully read the paper, I think this paper is quite detailed; however, it still needs to improve the conciseness and logic of its expression. Some comments and suggestions are listed and hope it’s helpful for the authors to improve the manuscript.
1. Abstract: Two points
(1) Further refinement the abstract is needed, and the verbose sentences need to be rewritten.
(2) Reduce procedural descriptions and appropriately increase quantitative results.
2. Introduction: Three points
(1) Reduce the total word count of the introduction.
(2) Line 137-144, move to “Section 2 Study area”.
(3) Add a clear statement of the aims.
3. Study area: One point
(1) Merge the contents of the following two sections: Section 2 and Section 3.1 and 3.2.
4. Methods: One point
(1) Retain the introduction and verification of numerical simulation methods (Section 3.3) and Development of empirical vulnerability models for buildings (Section 3.4).
5. Results: Two points
(1) Merge Figure 7 and Figure 8, Revise the expressions in the text.
(2) Revise the title of Section 4.2 and 4.3, to highlight the characteristics of this part.
6. Discussion: Further refine the content, now it’s about 15 pages.
7. Conclusion: Further refine the conclusions.
8. References: Refer to the submission instructions, check the format and add DOI.
9. Check the Figs and the title of the Fig.
10. The final version of the MS should be reviewed by a native English speaker.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-772-RC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jiangang Chen, 22 Sep 2025
reply
Dear Referee #1
We are sincerely grateful for your encouraging recognition of our study’s value and for your constructive suggestions, which have greatly strengthened our manuscript. We deeply appreciate your thoughtful comments and actionable suggestions, which are instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work. The praise and positive feedback you provided are a great honor and significant encouragement to our team. We have carefully addressed all your comments through thorough revisions to improve the conciseness and logical flow of the paper. Your insightful feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work. Should any further adjustments be needed, we remain fully committed to making timely revisions. We deeply appreciate your guidance throughout this process and hope the manuscript meets the journal’s standards.
Sincerely yours,
The following are specific responses, and our point-to-point responses are also provided in the form of a list in the supplementary materials.
- Comments: This is an interesting and valuable paper on post-fire debris flow disaster in mountainous regions. After I carefully read the paper, I think this paper is quite detailed; however, it still needs to improve the conciseness and logic of its expression. Some comments and suggestions are listed and hope it’s helpful for the authors to improve the manuscript.
Response: We are deeply grateful for your exceptionally generous and insightful feedback on our manuscript. Your kind words and positive assessment have been a tremendous encouragement to our entire team. Firstly, we are truly honored that you considered our study "interesting and valuable" in advancing debris flow disaster mitigation in mountainous regions. Thank you for recognizing the impact and thoroughness of our work—it is especially rewarding to know that our research resonates with experts like you, whose perspectives are highly valued in the field. Secondly, we sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions for improving the conciseness and logic of expression. Following your guidance, we have carefully revised and supplemented the relevant sections. Our specific point-by-point responses and modifications are detailed below. Finally, Thank you once again for your valuable suggestions and recognition. We are deeply grateful for your encouraging feedback and actionable advice, which have significantly strengthened our study. Should any aspects still require further refinement, we warmly welcome your additional guidance. Please accept our profound gratitude for your mentorship throughout this revision process.
- Comments: 1. Abstract: Two points (1) Further refinement the abstract is needed, and the verbose sentences need to be rewritten. (2) Reduce procedural descriptions and appropriately increase quantitative results.
Response: (1) Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Following your professional guidance, we have thoroughly revised the abstract to improve clarity and eliminate verbosity, restructuring long sentences for directness. Thank you again for your valuable comments and assistance. (2) Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Based on your valuable suggestion, we also recognize that that the original version overemphasized the process; consequently, we have significantly increased the emphasis on our quantitative results by incorporating key data to better highlight our main findings and further highlight this expression more clearly. Thank you again for your suggestions on enhancing the expression.
- Comments: 2. Introduction Three points (1) Reduce the total word count of the introduction. (2) Line 137-144, move to “Section 2 Study area”. (3) Add a clear statement of the aims.
Response: (1) Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the Introduction section. Your suggestions have helped us make it more concise and logically coherent. We have streamlined the entire section by consolidating sentences with similar meanings to achieve more compact expression and removing redundant background information. Through these measures, the total word count of the introduction has been reduced, resulting in a sharper focus. Thank you again for your suggestions on enhancing the expression of our paragraphs. (2) Thank you for your careful guidance and suggestions. We greatly appreciate this suggestion regarding placement. You are absolutely correct that the description of the study area's specific characteristics is out of place in the Introduction and more naturally belongs in the dedicated "Study Area" section. We have moved the content from lines 137-144 in its entirety to Section 2 (Study Area). We have also polished the transition to ensure it integrates smoothly with the surrounding text in its new location. Thank you again for your valuable advice and guidance. (3) We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable suggestions. Under your professional guidance, we have added and modified a clearer and more concise statement of the research aims at the end of the introduction section, which explicitly outlines the primary objectives of our study. Thank you again for this important feedback and suggestions.
- Comments: 3. Study area: One point (1) Merge the contents of the following two sections: Section 2 and Section 3.1 and 3.2.
Response: (1) Thank you for your valuable suggestion. As your suggested, we have consolidated the content from the original Section 2 (Study Area) and Sections 3.1 & 3.2 into a single and comprehensive section. This new section provides a more coherent and streamlined description of the geographical context and the characteristics of debris flow channels. Thank you again for these constructive suggestions regarding the manuscript's structure.
- Comments: 4. Methods: One point (1) Retain the introduction and verification of numerical simulation methods (Section 3.3) and Development of empirical vulnerability models for buildings (Section 3.4).
Response: (1) Thank you for valuable suggestion and guidance. We have retained the core methodological components as your instructed. The content from the original Section 3.3 (introduction and verification of numerical simulation methods) and Section 3.4 (Development of empirical vulnerability models for buildings) now forms the main body of our revamped "3. Methods" section. This ensures the methodological description is focused on the most critical and innovative aspects of our work. Thank you again for your valuable comments.
- Comments: 5. Results: Two points (1) Merge Figure 7 and Figure 8, Revise the expressions in the text. (2) Revise the title of Section 4.2 and 4.3, to highlight the characteristics of this part.
Response: (1) Thank you for this valuable suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have merged Figure 7 and Figure 8, which will facilitate a more direct and effective comparison of the results. Furthermore, we have thoroughly revised the corresponding text in the Results section. All previous references to the separate Figure 7 and Figure 8 have been updated to direct the reader to the new and combined figure. Thank you again for your careful guidance. (2) Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the titles to more accurately and prominently reflect the core findings and applications presented: The original title 4.2 and 4.3 has been revised to “4.2 Development of an intensity-vulnerability model for debris flow” and "4.3 Model application: intensity Prediction and spatial vulnerability assessment for the G2 gully". Thank you again for helping us improve our expression.
- Comments: 6. Discussion: Further refine the content, now it’s about 15 pages.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have critically reviewed the entire section to eliminate redundancy and consolidate related arguments. The focus has been sharpened to provide a more concise and impactful interpretation of the key results, their direct implications and compared with existing literature. Thank you again for your suggestion.
- Comments: 7. Conclusion: Further refine the conclusions.
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestion, we have thoroughly revised the Conclusion section to ensure it is precise and impactful. Thank you again for your guidance and assistance.
- Comments: 8. References: Refer to the submission instructions, check the format and add DOI.
Response: Thank you for this important reminder. The DOI for all references has been added. Thank you again for your careful suggestion.
- Comments: 9. Check the Figs and the title of the Fig.
Response: Thank you for your careful suggestion. We will check and unify it. Thank you again for your careful inspection.
- Comments: 10. The final version of the MS should be reviewed by a native English speaker.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. we have engaged the professional editing services to thoroughly review and polish the entire manuscript language. The final version has been meticulously checked for grammar, spelling, syntax, and overall fluency to ensure it meets the high standards required for publication. Thank you again for your suggestion.
Finally, we are profoundly grateful for your thorough review and expert guidance. Thank you again for your high recognition of our manuscript, which has given us great confidence to strengthen this study. we greatly appreciate your suggestions for helping us improve our manuscript, and we hope these improvements meet the journal’s standards for publication. Should further clarifications be needed, we are fully committed to addressing them promptly.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jiangang Chen, 22 Sep 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 727 | 87 | 27 | 841 | 16 | 23 |
- HTML: 727
- PDF: 87
- XML: 27
- Total: 841
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript is mainly focus on the buildings damaged by post-fire debris flows in mountain village. The authors have conducted detailed field investigations and reconstructions of disaster scenarios by numerical simulation, and development of physical vulnerability model for damaged buildings. The authors provide a comprehensive review of existing statistical models and indicators for vulnerability assessment, supplemented by extensive comparative analysis with previous research. Overall, this manuscript is interesting and it offers essential insights for assessing the impacts of post-fire debris flows on buildings and it’s helpful for mitigation strategies. Therefore, in my opinion, this manuscript is suitable for the scope of the journal, however, some suggestions are given for improving the manuscript.
Some comments on the manuscript: