Induced Seismic-Site Effects on the Vulnerability Assessment of a Historical Centre in the Molise Region of Italy: Analysis Method and Real Behaviour Calibration Based on 2002 Earthquake

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that the paper has been considerably improved and I have no doubt to recommend it for publication

Author Response

The Authors would like to acknowledge the reviewer for the positive judgement of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is slightly improved, but it is still obvious that authors have just basic, informative knowledge about seismology, geology, seismotectonics, local soil effects, the use of ground motion prediction equations and seismic hazard assessment. In addition, there is nothing new or innovative in the article.

The authors still mix the terms “damage” and “intensity”! Even, I am not sure do they know the proper meaning of the term “probability”?! Also, the difference between ‘damage’ and ‘damages’ should be noticed?

There is a big discrepancy in the style of describing a particular topic - it is evident that the authors are structural engineers, so subjects in their domain are not enough described, and those in the field of seismology are sometimes incorrect and sometimes go into unnecessary detail (e.g., facts known to every student of lower geophysical studies are mentioned - these certainly should not be in this kind of article). Tip: maybe the authors could consider hiring a seismologist as a co-author?!

Some remarks about figures (that are still present): when presented some events (earthquakes) on the figures – the authors should specified why they choose these particular events, and the time period when they occurred; the presented should be explained; it is necessary to indicate geographical coordinates on the figures, …

The study is not novel either refined! None geo-hazard conditions were considered. All “research” was done based on just one earthquake – is this event characteristic for the investigated area? Details (as the other comments) can be found in the article pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2’s Comments

 

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and the invaluable time for reviewing the manuscript. The reviewer’ s comments and the authors’ answers, as well as the changes in the paper in response to the reviewer’s comments, are provided with red text and highlighted in gray.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The manuscript is slightly improved, but it is still obvious that authors have just basic, informative knowledge about seismology, geology, seismotectonics, local soil effects, the use of ground motion prediction equations and seismic hazard assessment. In addition, there is nothing new or innovative in the article.

The authors thank for the comments made by the reviewer. However, it is important to point out that the knowledge (basic, elementary) for the preparation of the manuscript highlights, from a purely engineering point of view, a simplified methodology for the evaluation of local amplification effects used for large-scale seismic vulnerability analysis. However, the Authors have tried to improve much more the paper.

The authors still mix the terms “damage” and “intensity”! Even, I am not sure do they know the proper meaning of the term “probability”?! Also, the difference between ‘damage’ and ‘damages’ should be noticed?

All of these informations have been modified in the text.

There is a big discrepancy in the style of describing a particular topic - it is evident that the authors are structural engineers, so subjects in their domain are not enough described, and those in the field of seismology are sometimes incorrect and sometimes go into unnecessary detail (e.g., facts known to every student of lower geophysical studies are mentioned - these certainly should not be in this kind of article). Tip: maybe the authors could consider hiring a seismologist as a co-author?!

The reviewers thank the reviewer for the comment. As highlighted above, the purpose of the manuscript is to provide indications, albeit in a simplified manner, of the influence of local amplification effects on global vulnerability. However, the basic knowledge regarding seismological phenomena has not been neglected, but they are easily treated only to illustrate how to manage this issue in the Structural Engineering field, where the topic has not been deeply investigated.

Thanks for the suggestion regarding the presence of a seismologist in the working group. It will be considered in the next works. In this direction, in fact the Authors are already in touch with the research group of the University of Trieste. However, the manuscript is framed within the activities of the current year of the Italian ReLUIS-DPC research project, where the components of each research unit were already established at the beginning of the year when the scientific plan of the work was defined.

Some remarks about figures (that are still present): when presented some events (earthquakes) on the figures – the authors should specified why they choose these particular events, and the time period when they occurred; the presented should be explained; it is necessary to indicate geographical coordinates on the figures, …

The revisions of the figures have been made according to the suggestions of the reviewer. Regarding the definition of geographical coordinates, the Figures have been improved.

The study is not novel either refined! None geo-hazard conditions were considered. All “research” was done based on just one earthquake – is this event characteristic for the investigated area? Details (as the other comments) can be found in the article pdf.

The proposed methodology, from an engineering point of view, aims to highlight the influence of local amplification effects. From a seismological point of view, the evaluation of the effects is obvious, but from an engineering point of view, this estimate makes possible qualitative and quantitative indications regarding the increase of damage (as reported in equation 10) produced by local site conditions during seismic events. This methodology, therefore, provides an important and facilitated tool for large-scale analyses of historical centres.

As for the selected event, it was taken into consideration, since the Regional Civil Protection Department conducted a campaign of damage survey after that earthquake. So, for the selected earthquake, it was possible to define the real damages occurred, that are very useful in confirming the reliability of the proposed damage forecast analysis., allowing to calibrate effective typological vulnerability curves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responses to pdf’s Comments

 

No geological effects were analyzed in the article, although this is necessary for this type of research.

The sentence has been modified in the text.

WHY? Based on what assumptions the authors think that this event is representative for the investigated area?

See the last reply in the section “Responses to Reviewer 2’s Comments”

What is "the Molise EQ"? The 2002 event?

Yes. However, it has been modified in the text so to avoid misunderstanding.

Which site conditions were taken into account, and how?

The site condition has been analysed by means of Down-Hole test in order to identifying the soil stratigraphy. It should be noted that these tests were carried out directly by the municipal administration in the test points indicated in Figure 17. Subsequently, in a simplified way, the amplification factor deriving from the recorded accelerogram has been evaluated. The sentence has been modified properly.

Should be marked on the figure! (Figure 1).

Baranello is the inspected Municipality. However, the other sites have been added in the Figure 1.

Wrong title! Almost nothing is said about 2002 Molise event! Describe in detail the seismicity of the area of interest! (Section 2.2)

The title has been changed and more explanations were added.

Figure 2: intensities

It has been changed.

 

 

 

How do we know that?? (Line 133)

In the reference [23] it has been explained.

In which time period these EQs occurred? How was Mw calculated from I - if we are speaking about real historical events (before 1900)? (Figure 3)

It has been explained in the text, highlighted in yellow by the previous revision.

Spatial distribution of epicenters!!!

It has been modified

Based on (reference)? Describe! Put tectonics and geology features in seismic context. (figure 4(b))

The Figure 4(b) has been derived from DISS DB (available at: http://diss.rm.ingv.it/diss/). In this case, all the Italian faults have been catalogued with a description of their morphology. These information were reported in the text (line 144).

Moreover, Figure 4(c) has been modified.

Intensity can not be recorded! They just can be evaluated based on observations.

It has been changed.

What is this? What is C01? Legend and description are missing.

It has been added.

Cumulative percentage!!!!

Figure 5, it has been modified.

Figs (b) and (c) are the same - frequencies and their percentages! (Figure 9).

They are not the same. The Fig. (a) indicate the Damage probability matrix (DPM); the second one, FIg. (c), denotes the cumulative distributions based on DPM.

How? Where? (Line 227)

it has been modified.

In the EMS-98 there are defined vulnerability classes from A to F (see table on Page 14 - your reference [44]).

it has been modified.

Where did these come from? (Table 1)

From the description of the typological classes adopted in the EMS98 scale, CARTIS and DB Da.DO.

It would be great to know (briefly) how Si and Wi are calculated (determined). (Table 2)

it has been added.

Normalized vulnerability index (Fig. 11)

it has been modified.

 

Not true - the curves in Fig. 12 do not express the probability (see the numbers on ordinate)! (line 286)

it has been modified.

Why? (line 292)

The value of the ductility factor for buildings assumed equal to 2.3 derives from the reference [33] and updated in the text with [36]. This value was obtained on the basis of non-linear static analyses on a sample of masonry buildings and was obtained, by definition, from the ratio between the ultimate displacement and the yielding displacement of the equivalent bilinear system deriving from MDoF system.

Where? (line 295)

In Figure 12. However, it has been modified in the text.

Not correct enough (lines 308 - 313)

New explanations are given in the text.

Not just several! (Line 314)

It has been changed.

Why did you choose just these events? Are they characteristic for the seismicity of the area of the interest? Once again - describe the seismicity of the investigated area (based on the EG catalogue, spatial distribution of epicenters, ...) (Figure 13).

The events considered were selected as reference cases in order to study, from an engineering viewpoint, the expected damage in the area under study. These events were searched through the Parametric Catalog of Italian Earthquakes (CPTI15) excluding all those that did not produce effects directly to the Municipality of Baranello from the research. For this reason, the results shown are outside the detailed geophysical / seismological context, and they show only the geolocation of the municipality with respect to the event occurred. In this case, it was possible to establish, for the simulations, the distances (D) from the epicenter and the magnitudes (Mw) occurred.

The star denotes the location of microseismic or macroseismic epicenter? What are small squares (on Fig. (a) and (c))? (Figure 13).

The star indicates the macroseismic epicenter and the small squares identifies the position in which the earthquake occurred. With reference to the latter, a verbal judgment variable from "very large" to "very small" is used to quantify the magnitude, as adopted by INGV.

The worst scenario will lead to the most conservative risk assessment, but it does not mean that it is the most probable one. Also, the Esteva et al. relation is the oldest one, so its reliability is questionable! (line 341)

Yes, the results have shown how the Esteva et al.’s proposal provides most conservative scenarios for risk assessment. However, these considerations have been added in the text.

How this correlation was made? (Line 346)

It has been explained in Figure 15. In particular, according to the damage obtained, new DPM have been generated for the 3 cases examined in Figure 14.

 

Did you used recorded accelerograms, or synthetic? (Line 439)

We used recorded accelerograms.

Gelogical/tectonic map of area is missing. (Line 445)

Geological map has been provided in Figure 17.

What kind of in-situ measurements? Do you have borehole data? Why did you perform measurements JUST on 2 locations?

As described in the text, the data were provided by the municipal administration and not by the Authors. Down hole tests were carried out in the area. These information have been added in the text.

Is this correct? (Line 511)

The period has been modified.

Neither novel nor refined! (Line 521)

The period has been modified.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

without comments

Author Response

The Authors would like to acknowledge the reviewer for the positive judgement of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper shows clear discrepancies between the natural and technical sciences. So, even after considerable correction, my opinion is that the MS is not a scientific one, but a very correct technical report. There is a lack of additional research, analysis and explanation. I think that this article should be completely re-written and the authors should consider to include as co-author a seismologist, or at least a seismotectonist.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the paper is quite strong and scientifically sound. Certainly, it can be considered for publication. Please make sure that in the final version the English composition is as perfect as possible.

Minor comments

Line 36: I would refer to earthquake magnitude and not seismic intensity.

Line 38: I do suggest to use "economic losses" and not "loss of money"

Line 139. In figure 4 I do suggest to remove the geometrical description of the fault parameters, but it would be better to actually insert the focal mechanisms of the event.

Line 203. Check carefully formula 1 as some strange characters appeared in my pdf version of the manuscript

Line 212: Dots in Figure 9a are not readable.

Line 251-258: Formula 2 and 3. Please see comment above

Reviewer 2 Report

From the article it is obvious that authors do not have the necessary knowledge about seismicity, historical seismicity (the 2005 event is not “historical” one!), geology, seismotectonics, local soil effects, the use of ground motion prediction equations, seismic hazard assessment and seismic risk assessment.

Be careful when speaking about damage, intensity, vulnerability – often mixed!!

Adjective “seismic”, mentioned often in the article, does not really mean “seismic” since there were no real seismic investigations/observations/research done!

A lot of forms are mentioned in the article – when using acronyms, they should be explained, e.g., what AeDES means?

Equations are not displayed correctly, so it is impossible to assess whether they are correct

Some remarks about figures: when presented some events (earthquakes) on the figures – the authors should specified why they choose these particular events, and the time period when they occurred; the presented should be explained, e.g., how is left figure on Fig. 4 obtained, what orange parts on upper right figure on Fig. 4 denotes; the symbols on Figs. 12 and 18 are not necessary; the quality of figures should be improved (e.g., on Fig. 14 length legend is impossible to read); it is necessary to indicate geographical coordinates on the figures; Fig.20?!!; …

The study is not novel either refined! None geo-hazard conditions was considered. All “research” was done based on just one earthquake – is this event characteristic for the investigated area? Otherwise calibration does not have any sense! How really soil stratigraphy was defined? What means: “the software implicitly has taken into account the “filter” effect of the soil layers” – which software, how it takes into account the effect of surficial layers, …?

Reviewer 3 Report

1. An incomprehensible symbol appears in the text

譝

2. It is not clear in the conclusions whether the test results can be used in other seismic regions. The reviewer believes that this needs to be supplemented. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The work should be substantially improved better highlighting novelty elements prior to publish it on MDPI Geosciences