Rock Mass Characterization of Karstified Marbles and Evaluation of Rockfall Potential Based on Traditional and SfM-Based Methods; Case Study of Nestos, Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
please check the appended file with the comments.
In general more details about the adopted methods and formulas inside them, the performed hypotheses and justifications for the choices have to be added. More explanations and brief descriptions of the tools are required according to the comments.
Some references must be added as well as future developments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The application of the tool for evaluation of rock fall in a case study based on traditional (with some simplifications that must be explained) and SFM methods is interesting, however:
- It should describe the in situ characterization better for using the RMRbasic and explain the difference with the RMR. The RMR is based on the Q-sysyem (Barton's geomechanical classification) which requires the description and rating for different parameters: i) RQD; ii) jv - joint set number, iii) jr - joint roughness number; iv) jw - joint alteration number; v) jw - joint water reduction, that is, it must explain the reason for the devaluation of the different parameters, except jv. RQD = 115-3.3 jv (eq 2) (line 134)And we use this equation when borecore is unviable RQD can be estimated from the number of joints per unit volume, in which the number of joints per meter for each joint set are added. Attention: this simple relation can be used to convert to RQD for the case of clay-free rock masses.
- In the fall of blocks in addition to other factors there is no doubt that iii) jr - joint roughness number; iv) ja - joint alteration number; v) jw - joint water reduction are important variables.
- Jv – total number of joints per m3
- For example
- The bibliography is very extensive and sometimes irrelevant to infer concepts already acquired, for example line 58 ref [13] among others in cascade. I propose to reduce it to the essential that justifies the models and their simplifications.
- Attention to conventions, for example: the European notation for discontinuities is (dip, dip direction) not (dip direction / dip) - see text, tables and Fig 4.
- See Fig6 and Fig7: if the random variable follows a Gaussian distribution and the density curve is of the X- type (μ, σ ^ 2), x-axes variable can cause confusion (spacing) with the dimensional unit of this physical parameter.
- Put the scale and cartographic orientation in most figures, charts and maps ...
- Improve the quality and format of the figures, e.g., Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 5, Fig 7, Fig 9, Fig 10.
- Fig 11, the result is quite simplified, as it is not a drop of a point (a drop of a grave), but a block that will slide from the slope, according to the angle of the unfavorable discontinuity and then fall, that is, initially a hyperbolic trajectory following the vertical fall.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for your answer. Nevertheless, I have few comments on your reply.
Line 164: please rewrite in a finer manner the sentence
Lines 187-188: you cannot refer to a formula introduced later in the text. Please rewrite the sentence
Line 399: I did not suppose you had selected a free fall motion but I suggest you to justify the choice of these specific section planes for the profiles.
Line 417: as you performed a probabilistic analysis (even if I think that the number of 50 performed simulations is not statistically representative), you have to indicate to which value of the distribution the kinetic energy of 9.3 kJ corresponds (e.g. 95° percentile, or maximum value, etc).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
