the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Characterizing uncertainty in shear wave velocity profiles from the Italian seismic microzonation database
Abstract. This research uses a large dataset from the Italian Seismic Microzonation Database, containing nearly 15,000 measured shear wave velocity (Vs) profiles across Italy, to investigate the uncertainties in seismic risk assessment. This extensive collection allows a detailed study of the seismic properties of soil with unparalleled precision. Our focus is on evaluating Vs variations with depth within uniformly clustered areas, known as seismic microzones. These zones are carefully identified based on their spatial correlation and homogeneity in geological, geophysical, and geotechnical characteristics, which are critical for accurate prediction of seismic response. We contrast these results with clusters formed purely based on geographic survey density (here defined geographic clusters), thereby assessing the depth of our understanding of the subsurface geological and geophysical context. These results were further compared with those reported in the seismic code and literature. This study of depth-dependent Vs variations helps to refine our models of subsurface seismic behaviour. Our main discoveries show that: 1) uncertainties associated with seismic microzones (geological and geophysical clusters) are consistently lower than those identified in geographic clusters, particularly in the first 30 m of depth; 2) Vs profile variations show negligible increases in uncertainty within a certain range of correlation distances (up to about 4,500 m); 3) uncertainties for seismic microzones are lower than those previously reported in seismic codes and in the literature, indicating the effectiveness and precision of our methodological approach. The results of this study significantly improve local seismic response analysis and highlight the critical role of depth and spatial correlation in understanding seismic hazard. The dataset is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10885590 (Mori et al., 2024).
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(2597 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-104', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Aug 2024
The quality of the paper is generally fine. However, the ‘results’ section is quite underdeveloped and the figures are not very good quality. The authors only report the statistics but do not provide their interpretation at length. Considering the following points will greatly improve the technical soundness and readability of the paper:
1. Why are the Vs parameters being reported as 'Vs synthetic measurements' (e.g. Line 197). Are they simulated?
2. Why have Vs10, Vs20 and Vs30 been used for spatial correlation analysis? Why not average Vs at depth>30 m or H800?
3. Why are the semivariogram statistics significantly different between the spherical and exponential models (Table 6)? Please provide a figure by showing both with respect to the data.
4. Please improve the quality of the Figure 6. The symbol for the pairs is not visible at all. Please explain what is presented in this figure and how one can interpret the observations?
5. Please clarify how your results are comparable with Zhou et al. (2023) (Line 206). We know the range values you report are between 4.5 km and 25 km but how are they comparable with Zhou et al.?
6. Figure 7 is not legible at all. Please explain what is presented in the figure. The figure title mentions figure sublabels (a, b, c) but there are no such figures.
7. As mentioned in Line 214, how does Figure 7 show a strong trend toward clustering? Please explain.
8. Please explain how to interpret observations from Figure 8 (median values 500 m and 700 m for SM and GC clustering)?
9. Please provide a mathematical expression for σlnVs calculation.
10. In Figure 9 (left), what does the X-axis signify? How can one interpret this figure? Please explain it in text rather than in the Figure title. Please make the X-axis ticks visible so that one can read the counts. Please scale both figures (left and right) to same size.
11. Please provide maps showing examples of SM and GC areas.
12. This reviewer questions the validity of Line 264. If this analysis has been performed for areas that include sites from soft basins to mountain topography, then 30 m depth can not be representative of the entire dataset. This is also observed at the end in Figure 12.
13. Please rewrite the interpretations in Line 260-265 as the sentences are not easy to follow. The line “The decrease in the first 30 m, represents the quantification of the importance” is misleading.
14. How are the authors sure that “The plot (Fig. 10) shows a clear improvement for the first 10-15 m” (Line 274)? The lower values in uncertainty could be due to many reasons. One reason could be that probably the data used after filtering do not represent all geology types and hence, do not capture the variability. If the authors could present the map of filtered data, then we could verify it.
15. Please provide references for European EC8, NEHRP for the USA, and Italian NTC18.
16. Why is the value of Vs30 synthetic as mentioned in Line 277 (“the dynamic characterization of sites is represented by the synthetic value of Vs30”) and in many other instances? Isn’t it calculated from geophysical measurements?
17. It’s apparent from Figure 11 and the authors’ explanation that the standard deviations obtained from this study by soil class is not generally comparable with those from Toro. This might be an indication of the site-specific nature or data-specific influence of Vs variation. Hence the conclusion in Line 329-331 is not soundly established. This question has not been resolved by this paper. The authors could probably discuss about it or indicate it as a limitation of the study.
Editorial comments:
Line 18: here defined “as”
Line 29-30: What does it mean “about 4,000 out of approximately 8,000”?
Line 153: The paragraph title “Dataset Vs profiles clustering” is confusing.
Line 187: “An” SM
Line 211: “Moran’s”
Table 3: The fonts are mixed
Line 285: larger “than”
Line 325: It’s confusing “the difference is 14% for the first 30 m, increasing to 2% at greater depths”. Please rewrite it.
Line 327: What does it mean “σlnVs values … are internal to the percentiles”. Please rewrite it.
Line 346: contribute to the advancement “of” the disciplineCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-104-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Federico Mori, 19 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-104/essd-2024-104-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Federico Mori, 19 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-104', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Aug 2024
My final recommendation is that some technical problems (as far as I understood the paper) need to be solved before the claims of the paper can be considered correct.
I would suggest a complete recheck/recalulation and resubmission.
Please see my comments and annotated text in the attachment.-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Federico Mori, 19 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-104/essd-2024-104-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Federico Mori, 19 Sep 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-104', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Aug 2024
The quality of the paper is generally fine. However, the ‘results’ section is quite underdeveloped and the figures are not very good quality. The authors only report the statistics but do not provide their interpretation at length. Considering the following points will greatly improve the technical soundness and readability of the paper:
1. Why are the Vs parameters being reported as 'Vs synthetic measurements' (e.g. Line 197). Are they simulated?
2. Why have Vs10, Vs20 and Vs30 been used for spatial correlation analysis? Why not average Vs at depth>30 m or H800?
3. Why are the semivariogram statistics significantly different between the spherical and exponential models (Table 6)? Please provide a figure by showing both with respect to the data.
4. Please improve the quality of the Figure 6. The symbol for the pairs is not visible at all. Please explain what is presented in this figure and how one can interpret the observations?
5. Please clarify how your results are comparable with Zhou et al. (2023) (Line 206). We know the range values you report are between 4.5 km and 25 km but how are they comparable with Zhou et al.?
6. Figure 7 is not legible at all. Please explain what is presented in the figure. The figure title mentions figure sublabels (a, b, c) but there are no such figures.
7. As mentioned in Line 214, how does Figure 7 show a strong trend toward clustering? Please explain.
8. Please explain how to interpret observations from Figure 8 (median values 500 m and 700 m for SM and GC clustering)?
9. Please provide a mathematical expression for σlnVs calculation.
10. In Figure 9 (left), what does the X-axis signify? How can one interpret this figure? Please explain it in text rather than in the Figure title. Please make the X-axis ticks visible so that one can read the counts. Please scale both figures (left and right) to same size.
11. Please provide maps showing examples of SM and GC areas.
12. This reviewer questions the validity of Line 264. If this analysis has been performed for areas that include sites from soft basins to mountain topography, then 30 m depth can not be representative of the entire dataset. This is also observed at the end in Figure 12.
13. Please rewrite the interpretations in Line 260-265 as the sentences are not easy to follow. The line “The decrease in the first 30 m, represents the quantification of the importance” is misleading.
14. How are the authors sure that “The plot (Fig. 10) shows a clear improvement for the first 10-15 m” (Line 274)? The lower values in uncertainty could be due to many reasons. One reason could be that probably the data used after filtering do not represent all geology types and hence, do not capture the variability. If the authors could present the map of filtered data, then we could verify it.
15. Please provide references for European EC8, NEHRP for the USA, and Italian NTC18.
16. Why is the value of Vs30 synthetic as mentioned in Line 277 (“the dynamic characterization of sites is represented by the synthetic value of Vs30”) and in many other instances? Isn’t it calculated from geophysical measurements?
17. It’s apparent from Figure 11 and the authors’ explanation that the standard deviations obtained from this study by soil class is not generally comparable with those from Toro. This might be an indication of the site-specific nature or data-specific influence of Vs variation. Hence the conclusion in Line 329-331 is not soundly established. This question has not been resolved by this paper. The authors could probably discuss about it or indicate it as a limitation of the study.
Editorial comments:
Line 18: here defined “as”
Line 29-30: What does it mean “about 4,000 out of approximately 8,000”?
Line 153: The paragraph title “Dataset Vs profiles clustering” is confusing.
Line 187: “An” SM
Line 211: “Moran’s”
Table 3: The fonts are mixed
Line 285: larger “than”
Line 325: It’s confusing “the difference is 14% for the first 30 m, increasing to 2% at greater depths”. Please rewrite it.
Line 327: What does it mean “σlnVs values … are internal to the percentiles”. Please rewrite it.
Line 346: contribute to the advancement “of” the disciplineCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-104-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Federico Mori, 19 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-104/essd-2024-104-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Federico Mori, 19 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-104', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Aug 2024
My final recommendation is that some technical problems (as far as I understood the paper) need to be solved before the claims of the paper can be considered correct.
I would suggest a complete recheck/recalulation and resubmission.
Please see my comments and annotated text in the attachment.-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Federico Mori, 19 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-104/essd-2024-104-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Federico Mori, 19 Sep 2024
Data sets
Shear wave velocity profiles from Italian Seismic Microzonation project Federico Mori et al. https://zenodo.org/records/11263471
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
399 | 85 | 152 | 636 | 19 | 19 |
- HTML: 399
- PDF: 85
- XML: 152
- Total: 636
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1