Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting work that deserves to be published. Introduces a new methodology and compares it with the existing one. The way to score risk is very clear. However, we miss a mention of the Slope Mass Rating (Romana 1995), the RMR alone is not used on slopes without it having to be corrected. The research is what it is and the SMR has not been applied but we would appreciate at least a mention of it in the introduction or in chapter 2. See for example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283584139_Slope_Mass_Rating_SMR_geomechanics_classification_thirty_years_review

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 1. Abstract should be more specific to illustrate the novelty of this research.

 2. In the conclusion part, the content should be simplified to emphasize the advancement of this research, taking example of dividing the conclusion into several pieces and adding quantitative results. 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors selected nine rockfall geohazard sites along highway corridors in Alberta and compared to GRMP values with five well-established rock mass and rock slope rating systems results, which are RHRS, CRHRS, Q-slope, GSI and RMR. Authors observed that rockfall hazard rating system (RHRS) showed a strong correlation with the GRMP risk rating while Q-Slope, the Geological Strength Index (GSI) and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) correlation were marginal.

 

The introduction section of MS looks fine but need more improvement in terms to includes more reference to improve the quality of MS which may be - 1. Rockfall Hazard Rating System along SH-72: a case study of Poladpur–Mahabaleshwar road (Western India), Maharashtra, India; 2. Overview of some geological hazards in Saudi Arabia. Environmental Earth Sciences; 3. Analysis of rockfall hazards along NH-15: a case study of Al-Hada road etc.

 

Authors mentioned GRMP PF and CF parameters with different rating list and tried to correlate with all other five rating systems, but these factors don’t mention any field or laboratory testing system, only probabilistic based. How to rely on probabilistic data to calculate the Risk Level of the site? Field testing, measurements, and laboratory rock specimen testing are key parameters to understanding the behavior of rock mass, which are missing in case studies. The concept of this MS is excellent for comparing the different rating system to check risk assessments of Rock Fall hazards but need some in-depth parameters to improve the MS.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present formate.