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 (until 23 Jul 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-772', wei wang, 26 Jun 2025
reply
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:
- Line 103: Suggest replacing "quantities" with " parameters".
- Line 120: Remove "thus".
- Line 166: Suggest consistently use "G1 gully" and "G2 gully"
- Lines 206-207: I understand that the author is trying to express a prediction of the potential post fire debris flow damage to buildings in G2 gully. It is suggested to remove the content in parentheses "(after postfire debris flow occurrence)" or change "G2 gully under potential future debris flow scenarios" to avoid misunderstandings.
- Line 213 (Fig 3): This is a strong and clear methodological framework structure. Good logical flow from objectives to results.
- Line 228: Suggest changing the expression " percentage passing curve" to " particle size distribution curve ", consistent with the title in the figure.
- Line 256: Suggest unifying the units here by changing "(g/cm³)" to "(t/m³)".
- Line 337: Editing error, remove unnecessary commas after α2 in Table 2.
- Line 379: In equation 11, it is recommended to clearly define ρ as the density of debris flow.
- Line 403: Despite the full name of the statistical function LNCDF being provided in the Introduction section, it is recommended to restate it here in the Methodology section before using the abbreviation.
- Line 486: This is a commendable part of the work, as the author compared the differences in stability, sensitivity, and accuracy of different intensity indicators, reflecting the comprehensive consideration and innovation of this study.
- Line 606: Suggest writing 'logical' in uppercase as' Logical' for unified editing throughout the entire text.
- Lines 695-702: I completely agree with the author's viewpoint that when two gullies threaten the village at the same time, an effective escape direction is crucial, which provides insights for developing disaster management and mitigation strategies. Practical, well-illustrated emergency response recommendations directly address the study's applied goal.
- Line 763: Suggest correcting the title of Appendix B part (b) from "Design frequency P=1%" to "Design frequency P=2%".
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-772-CC1 -
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
-
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.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 154 | 33 | 14 | 201 | 6 | 11 |
- HTML: 154
- PDF: 33
- XML: 14
- Total: 201
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1