Damage during the 6–24 February 2017 Ayvacık (Çanakkale) earthquake swarm

Livaoğlu, Ramazan; Timurağaoğlu, Mehmet Ömer; Serhatoğlu, Cavit; Döven, Mahmud Sami

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-921-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-921-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Damage of natural hazards: assessment and mitigation

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-921-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 3

Research article

|

23 Mar 2018

Research article |

| 23 Mar 2018

Damage during the 6–24 February 2017 Ayvacık (Çanakkale) earthquake swarm

Ramazan Livaoğlu, Mehmet Ömer Timurağaoğlu, Cavit Serhatoğlu, and Mahmud Sami Döven

Download

Final revised paper (published on 23 Mar 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Jul 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Seda Kundak, 01 Aug 2017
- AC1: 'Author response to Dr Kundak', Ramazan Livaoglu, 18 Oct 2017
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Aug 2017
- AC2: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2', Ramazan Livaoglu, 18 Oct 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (31 Oct 2017) by Daniela Molinari

AR by Ramazan Livaoglu on behalf of the Authors (09 Dec 2017) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Dec 2017) by Daniela Molinari

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Dec 2017)

RR by Seda Kundak (02 Jan 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

SECOND REVIEW
Firstly I would like to thank the authors for the revisions. Furthermore, I had chance to read the comments of reviewers and the editor. There are some points which I have to emphasize for the further revision of the manuscript.
The first point is on the following two paragraphs:
EDITOR: “I think that, at present, results (or better evidences) are simply discussed in a narrative form without any critical analysis of them… which can be the really added value of the research. But, above all, what results tell us which is novel with respect to the state of the art?”
AUTHORS:• As we discussed in the manuscript and responses given here, the structure type used in the site is not common types neither for Turkey nor for the other earthquake zones all over the world. So every observed damages i.e failure examples due to improper interlocking mechanism and/or lack of bonding between stone-stone or stone-mortar give us special failure type for such a regional construction. It is almost not possible to see such connection details in earthquake prone-areas. Besides other a lot of information given in the manuscript only this information will attract readers’ attention.
Unfortunately I cannot agree with the statement of the authors. Once we talk about the traditional structures, we can easily observe similarities either structural type or materials used. Especially, considering traditional structures in Anatolia which had been affected both large cultural basin (from the Balkan Region through Iran) and climatic conditions. For instance, it is easy to find out analogues of timber used structures in Black Sea and Balkan Region. We can also find masonry or other types’ of structure in different zones. For sure, it shouldn’t be expected to find the exact structural types of the survey area in another single zone, but each sample in the findings of this survey would enlighten different issues at different regions. Therefore, I recommend the authors to re-evaluate their approach, to reveal the novelties in their research and to reflect the outcomes to improve the state of the art.
The second point is on the Figure 15 and related paragraph. Structure type is related with the construction, but the authors refer the occupancy of the units/buildings. So that the terminology is misused here. We can understand the different ways of usage such as office, store (shop would fit better), house (housing unit or single housing unit), barn and hayloft. However, it is not clear what “building” refers to. Here I recommend the authors to cross structure types and occupancy to reach some tangible findings. For instance, if the percentage of x structures is homogenously distributed in each occupancy, here the maintenance related to the occupancy would be primary point in damage ratios. Or if the percentage of x structure is higher in haylofts and barns and the damage ratio is also high, the conclusion would be on the problems of the construction/structure type.
The third point, as I mentioned in my first review, on the conclusion and recommendation part. This part should give concrete remarks referring the findings of the research. However, this section is still weak. So I would repeat my previous comment here: “It is very well known that old and low quality (both in material and engineering aspects) buildings are vulnerable to seismic tremors. The recommendations should be beyond re-phrasing "avoid those buildings". Most of the villages are dated back 1970s and before, it is not likely to evaluate them according to the newest building codes. Furthermore, there is always doubt how much they had fit to the old building codes. I suggest authors to focus how traditional rural domestic buildings would be retrofitted using local knowledge and local materials. This approach would give a valuable contribution to the research field.”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (16 Jan 2018) by Daniela Molinari

AR by Ramazan Livaoglu on behalf of the Authors (26 Jan 2018)

ED: Publish as is (07 Feb 2018) by Daniela Molinari

AR by Ramazan Livaoglu on behalf of the Authors (15 Feb 2018) Author's response Manuscript

Post-review adjustments

AA: Author's adjustment | EA: Editor approval

AA by Ramazan Livaoglu on behalf of the Authors (16 Mar 2018) Author's adjustment

EA: Adjustments approved (19 Mar 2018) by Daniela Molinari

Short summary

The paper discusses the seismological aspects of the 6–24 February 2017 Ayvacık (Çanakkale) earthquake swarm, describes the classifications of buildings in the area and elaborates on the performance of various building types during the earthquakes, and evaluates the damage distributions according to villages, damage ratios, structures and damage levels.