Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents an improved approach to determine the inflow velocity of loose landslide based on the ASCE recommended method, which is of great importance for forecasting the potential risk of landslide-induced surge. The comparative analysis shows that the proposed method can provide a relative reasonable estimation of the inflow velocity. Since the proposed method is an analytical solution, some issues with the equations appeared in the paper must be carefully checked before it can be considered for publication. The detailed comments are as follows:

1. Page1, Line 31, “the scale and water depth of the landslide” seems awkward.

2. Page 3, Line 23, the Equation (3) seems incorrect. Please check it.

3. Page 4, Equation (12), because the symbol “ctg” is easy to be regard as the product of the cohesion and the tangent value, it is recommended to use the symbol “cot” and “tan” to represent the cotangent and tangent functions.

4. Page 5, Equation (13) and (14), see the suggestion for the Equation (12).

5. According to the authors’ method, the landslide thickness is vital for determining the porosity of loose landslide after its initiation, so how to measure it in the indoor model test or in the actual situation?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the introduction of the article, the authors gave in a very factual way the state of knowledge about landslides occurring on the slopes of water bodies or rivers. References to literature include the names of scientists from around the world. The topic is very specialized. All research in this area will constitute a valuable contribution to the development of the scientific discipline. The authors presented both theoretical analyses as well as an example.

The calculation formula of acceleration and the formula for calculating the speed of mass rock slides entering the water is in my opinion (as a reviewer) the main advantage of the article. I think it will be used by other readers.

I have no comments on the main content of the article. The content is logical, presented in a precise and concise way.

However, I have doubts about the symbols used. Authors should review the text in detail, its formatting. The same letters appear in the patterns as uppercase and lowercase letters, and the fonts used in the patterns and in their descriptions are different and this may cause difficulties in the correct reception of the text.

for example:

Page 3 line 14 something is wrong with symbol v (font/size).... also line 27,28-size of symbol is different than in the formulas

Page 4 line 7 symbol s -different sizes

Page 5 line 1 symbol a, v-size

 

Author Response

[Comment] 1. Page 3 line 14 something is wrong with symbol v (font/size).... also line 27, 28-size of symbol is different than in the formulas; Page 4 line 7 symbol s -different sizes; Page 5 line 1 symbol a, v-size.

[Reply] Thank you for your careful reading and reminding. We have checked the format of formulas and symbols in the text, corrected the wrong letter size, and displayed it in red font.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf