From regional to local SPTHA: efficient computation of probabilistic tsunami inundation maps addressing near-field sources

Volpe, Manuela; Lorito, Stefano; Selva, Jacopo; Tonini, Roberto; Romano, Fabrizio; Brizuela, Beatriz

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-455-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-455-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-455-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 3

Research article

|

06 Mar 2019

Research article |

| 06 Mar 2019

From regional to local SPTHA: efficient computation of probabilistic tsunami inundation maps addressing near-field sources

Manuela Volpe, Stefano Lorito, Jacopo Selva, Roberto Tonini, Fabrizio Romano, and Beatriz Brizuela

Download

Final revised paper (published on 06 Mar 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Jul 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of: From regional to local SPTHA: efficient computation of probabilistic inundation maps addressing near-field sources', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Aug 2018
- AC1: 'Response to review by Anonymous Referee #1,', Manuela Volpe, 25 Oct 2018
RC2: 'Review: From regional to local SPTHA: efficient computation of probabilistic inundation maps addressing near-field sources', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Aug 2018
- AC2: 'Response to review by Anonymous Referee #2', Manuela Volpe, 25 Oct 2018
RC3: 'review comments', Anonymous Referee #3, 15 Aug 2018
- AC3: 'Response to review by Anonymous Referee #3', Manuela Volpe, 25 Oct 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (14 Nov 2018) by Maria Ana Baptista

AR by Manuela Volpe on behalf of the Authors (21 Dec 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (08 Jan 2019) by Maria Ana Baptista

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Jan 2019) by Maria Ana Baptista

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (24 Jan 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (03 Feb 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

In general I think this paper is a good contribution and worth publishing.

There is one thing that confuses me, however, that perhaps need to be better explained.

In Figure 3(c), the purple line shows the MU, mean uplift on a random point along the coastline. I assume (based on the discussion at the bottom of page 10) that at each point on the coast this is computed by averaging over all scenarios that inundated at least to level Hmax at this point. So I think that as Hmax goes to zero this should approach a constant value, given by the mean uplift over all points and all scenarios. It is not clear to me why this curve is not shown for Hmax < 1m, which would allow one to better test this understanding.

Also, I would think that the scenarios with subsidence at the coast would give the most flooding, not the ones that have uplift. So for larger values of Hmax I would have expected that averaging MU only over the scenarios that exceeded Hmax would tend to give values of MU that are negative and decreasing as Hmax increases. The purple curve does decrease for Hmax > 3m, but it is not clear why it is increasing before this and positive everywhere except at the the largest value Hmax = 6m. The comment about this on page 11, line 8 of the paper says "Anyway, the obtained positive values indicate that the uplift of the coast is prevailing, consistently with the positive percentage differences retrieved between the two approaches for Hmax > 1m." It is not clear to me why this is consistent or expected from the positive differences between the two approaches. Some additional explanation would be useful.

Another comment concerning Figure 3(a,b) is that the individual hazard curves are impossible to see, as these figures are mostly a mass of gray. In particular there is no way to compare things visually between 3(a) and (b) and so these figures are not very useful. I wonder if there is a way to clarify this, perhaps by only showing the hazard curves at a much smaller number of representative points rather than plotting them for all points?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (04 Feb 2019) by Maria Ana Baptista

AR by Manuela Volpe on behalf of the Authors (08 Feb 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (11 Feb 2019) by Maria Ana Baptista

AR by Manuela Volpe on behalf of the Authors (12 Feb 2019)

Download

Article (2067 KB)
Full-text XML