the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 10 Dec 2024
Regional scale shear wave velocity profiles for ground response analyses uncertainties evaluations – the Piedmont Region (NW Italy) Database
Abstract. The prediction of earthquake ground motions, and consequent seismic hazard of a specific area of study, is usually based on ground response evaluations of a statistical representative sample of possible soil and rock profiles. With this aim shear wave velocity (Vs) properties of the profiles are of paramount importance, given that uncertainty in this parameter play a major role in ground motion prediction and in its variability. Usually, stochastic procedures are adopted to model this uncertainty, and several stochastic approaches have been developed. These approaches should be however calibrated on detailed geological-geomorphological information and specific Vs profiles databases. Within this context the present paper is aimed to provide a new extensive database of Vs profiles over the Piedmont Region (NW Italy). These data are obtained through a specific workflow developed for their evaluation at the regional scale merging the information of specific geological-geomorphological modelling and devoted geophysical data collection. The obtained database (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13685087) could be used as the basis of Vs randomization approaches also in different geological contexts and results from the specific data analyses performed could be adopted as reference for similar materials in analogous geological contexts.
- Preprint
(4441 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-413', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jan 2025
The paper entitled "Regional scale shear wave velocity profiles for ground response analyses uncertainties evaluations – the Piedmont Region (NW Italy)
Database" (by Comina et al.) presents a database of Vsz profiles in regional scale for use in seismic response analyses and an original methodology to create it. The paper deserves publication to the ESSD only if the following remarks are taken into account.General remarks
- In the title I guess that an “and” is missing to make it more complehesible (e.g. “…for for ground response analyses and uncertainties evaluations…” .
- The first two lines of the Abstract are repeated in the first two lines of the Introduction.
- Careful check of References is needed. For instance the NTC(2018) appears several times in the manuscript but it doesnot appear in the References.
- Comparing the Vs,h map (Fig. 11) with the Vs,30 (Fig. 12) the authors stare that “The two maps show partially similar features”. This expression seems quite vague and needs more clarification. For instance, it is suggested to the authors to use the relations proposed by Boore et al. (BSSA, 2011), This expression seems quite vague and needs more clarification that related globally Vs,30 values with Vs,h with satisfactory correlation. In this way, the author can cross-check their results and better interpret their findings.
- In Figures 4c and 5c large dispersion of the Vs,h profiles is observed. This means that if uncertainties are taken into account in ground response analyses, discrimination between the 13 proposed categories may be meaningless. That is, some categories may fall in the zone of +-one standard deviation of another. To clarify this issue, a quantitative parametric analysis is needed, including ground response analyses of the average +- one s.d. of the Vs,h profiles presented in Figure 6. Such a parametric analysis can improve the validity of the created database and encourage its use in regional scale.
Minor remarks
- In the header of Table 4: an “S” is missing (e.g. Seismic bedrock depth range[km])
- In the caption of Fig. 4d: “…following NTC(2018)”
- In line 213: “…similar behaviour, …”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-413-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-413', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Jan 2025
I have found the paper of potential interest for the essd reader and for a wider community of seismologists and engineers involved in seismic hazard assessment. The scientific background is sound and the whole workflow is satisfactority illustrated. Results are significant and the database provides an important contribution for the study of site effects at regional scale. However, important information is apparently lacking and this prevents the possible direct application of outcomes from this study. The randomization process to be applied to account for uncertainty in the Vs soil profiles when site response is estimated requires a quantitative formalization (average and standard deviation of Vs values as a function of depth, correlation between subsequent layers) which is lacking. This does not allow evaluating significance of differences of the Vs profiles in Figure 6. This formalization was possibly beyond the scope of a paper aiming at providing the database, but also represents an important limitation of the work. Supplying this information could largely improve the impact of the paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-413-RC2
Data sets
Regional scale shear wave velocity profiles for ground response analyses uncertainties evaluations – the Piedmont Region (NW Italy) Database C. Comina et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13685087
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 185 | 37 | 9 | 231 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 185
- PDF: 37
- XML: 9
- Total: 231
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1