1. This paper provides an overview of debris-flow mathematical modelling, discussing the main characteristics and the five main characteristics used to classify debris-flow models.
2. The paper reviews the literature on debris-flow models, providing a classification strategy for them and a selection strategy depending on the case to be simulated.
3. The paper also presents a catalogue of the most common debris-flow models with their most relevant characteristics, which might support researchers, practitioners, and governmental entities in performing more rigorous model selection to simulate these phenomena.
The article “An Overview of Debris-Flow Mathematical Modelling” is an extensive review of existing mathematical models for debris flow propagation. The authors provide a comprehensive overview of the different aspects that need to be taken into account when modelling debris flows, such as phases of the flow, entrainment of materials, constitutive relationships, spatial dimensionality and solution methods. They also provide guidelines for model classification and selection as well as a catalogue of the most common debris-flow models with their most relevant characteristics.
The article is generally well written and provides an in-depth review of existing mathematical models for debris flow propagation. It is clear that the authors have done extensive research into this topic and have provided detailed information about each aspect they discuss. Furthermore, they provide useful guidelines for model classification and selection which can be used by researchers when selecting a model for their particular case study.
However, there are some potential biases in the article that should be noted. Firstly, it appears that there is a bias towards certain types of models (e.g., two-phase depth-averaged models) which may lead to an incomplete understanding of all available options for modelling debris flows. Secondly, while the authors do mention some counterarguments to certain points they make (e.g., regarding particle size), they do not explore these arguments in any great detail or present both sides equally which could lead to an incomplete understanding of all available options for modelling debris flows. Finally, while the authors do mention some possible risks associated with modelling debris flows (e.g., computational cost), they do not explore these risks in any great detail or present both sides equally which could lead to an incomplete understanding of all available options for mitigating these risks when modelling debris flows.
In conclusion, while this article provides an extensive review of existing mathematical models for debris flow propagation and useful guidelines for model classification and selection, there are some