the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Seismogenic depth and seismic coupling estimation in the transition zone between Alps, Dinarides and Pannonian Basin for the new Slovenian seismic hazard model
Polona Zupančič
Barbara Šket Motnikar
Michele M. C. Carafa
Petra Jamšek Rupnik
Mladen Živčić
Vanja Kastelic
Gregor Rajh
Martina Čarman
Jure Atanackov
Andrej Gosar
Abstract. The seismogenic depth and seismic coupling are important inputs into seismic hazard estimates. Although the importance of seismic coupling is often overlooked, it significantly impacts seismic hazard results. We present an estimation of upper and lower seismogenic depth and hypocentral depth and seismic coupling in the transition zone between the Alps, Dinarides and Pannonian Basin, characterized by complex deformation pattern, highly variable crustal thickness, and moderate seismic hazard, supporting the development of the 2021 seismic hazard model of Slovenia. We estimated the lower seismogenic depth using seismological and geological data and compared them. The seismological estimate was based on two regional earthquake catalogues prepared for this study. In the area source model, estimates of lower seismogenic depth from seismological data are deeper or equal to the ones derived from geological data, except in one case. In the fault source model, we analyzed each fault individually and chose seismological lower depth estimates in 12 among 89 faults as more representative. The seismogenic thickness for each individual fault source was determined for seismic coupling determination. The seismic coupling was assessed by two approaches, i.e. we chose the most trusted value from the literature, and the value determined for each fault individually by using the approach based on the updated regional fault and earthquake datasets. The final estimate of seismic coupling ranges from 0.77 to 0.38. We compared the tectonic moment rate based on long-term slip rate using different values of seismic coupling with the seismic moment rate obtained from the earthquake catalogue. The analysis is done for the whole area, as well as for the individual area zones. The analysis of N-S components of estimated slip for the largest faults in the area of west Slovenia shows that the regional geologic and geodetic shortening rates are comparable. The total activity rate of three global seismic source models is compared, which gives up to a 10 % difference. Our results contribute to a better understanding of the seismic activity in the region and the approach for seismic coupling estimation can be applied in other similar regions.
- Preprint
(3709 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(223 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Polona Zupančič et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-127', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Aug 2023
The topic of this paper is the estimation of natural seismic hazard using the seismic coupling and seismogenic depth estimation method. The authors' approach is comprehensive and quantitatively evaluates the entire fault system and seismic hypocentres in western Slovenia for the transition zone between the Alps, the Dinarides and the Pannonian Basin. This is a fact worthy of inclusion in the new Slovenian seismic risk model. I strongly recommend that paper be published. Perhaps, just for the reader's ease of finding the correspondence, the authors should attach an appendix or index with an explanation of the abbreviations that are actually explained in the text. But since there are quite a lot of them, they could also be systematized.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-127-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Polona Zupančič, 25 Sep 2023
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. The list of abbreviations will indeed help the reader therefore it is added to the end of the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-127-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Polona Zupančič, 25 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-127', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2023
GENERAL COMMENT
The paper is very good. It addresses an important aspect, not yet researched, related to seismic sources in Slovenia. The width and depth of the seismogenic layer are a crucial input in modern PSHA. It is well written and deserves publication. There are only a few details that should be improved in order to fully understand some parts, also for the non-specialized reader. I suggest therefore a minor review.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS (L = line of paper)
L18 Should add an introductory statement stating that three source models are used.
L74 We applied... No application of PSHA in this paper. Should say: Šket Motnikar et al. (2022) applied ...
L77-78 Sentence has no clear meaning. Rewrite.
L104 The abbreviation PS is not explained before (e.g. in lines 81-85)
L145 In the caption of Fig.2 there should be a reference (e.g. DOI Pangaea dataset) where is it possible to correlate the acronym of the fault with the actual fault name and properties.
L162 If the ZAMG catalog spans the period 1998-2014 how is possible to consider events from 1990 on ?
L236 »... from neighbouring zone...« Missing criterium of selection if there are several neighbouring zones !
L245 same comment as for L236
L361 Figure 4. One woudl expect also to see (with comments in the text) in this Figure some of the main propminent and known faults in Slovenia (e.g. Idrija, Snežnik, Sava, Orlek) and neighbouting Croatia (e.g. Petrinja). I strongly invite the Authors to add these.
L379-80 + Fig. 7: »hypocentral depths« Unclear and could not find explanation in the text about the exact definition. Is it the average or median hypocentral depth of the events in the source area or fault related? Same for caption of Figure 7.
L448-451 »... is justified and choice of method appropriate.« Please justify this affirmation with some explanation. Any conclusion on couplings or β
parameter? Same applies to Fig. 9.
»The fit is the best between..« --> »The best fit is between...« BUT: explain why!
»'Carafa c' branch« Some short explanation about the Carafa branches is needed for the non-specialized reader.
L598 In caption of Table 9 indicate »SR=slip rate«
L591 ».... was used as one logic tree branch in PSHA.« ».... was used by (Reference!) as one logic tree branch in PSHA.«
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
L84 English: ...are in detail explained --> are explained in detail
L95 English: A fraction --> The fraction
L99 were studied --> are studied
L166 'joined' better 'added'
L172 A seismic source ..
VARIOUS ASPECTS
- Does the paper address relevant scientific and/or technical questions within the scope of NHESS? Yes
- Does the paper present new data and/or novel concepts, ideas, tools, methods or results? Yes
- Are these up to international standards? Yes
- Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and outlined clearly? Yes
- Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and the conclusions? Yes
- Does the author reach substantial conclusions? Yes
- Is the description of the data used, the methods used, the experiments and calculations made, and the results obtained sufficiently complete and accurate to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)? If the catalogs are made available.
- Does the title clearly and unambiguously reflect the contents of the paper? Yes
- Does the abstract provide a concise, complete and unambiguous summary of the work done and the results obtained? Yes
- Are the title and the abstract pertinent, and easy to understand to a wide and diversified audience? Yes
- Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations and units correctly defined and used? If the formulae, symbols or abbreviations are numerous, are there tables or appendixes listing them? Yes, no need for appendixes
- Is the size, quality and readability of each figure adequate to the type and quantity of data presented? Yes
- Does the author give proper credit to previous and/or related work, and does he/she indicate clearly his/her own contribution? Yes
- Are the number and quality of the references appropriate? Yes
- Are the references accessible by fellow scientists? Mostly
- Is the overall presentation well structured, clear and easy to understand by a wide and general audience? Mostly
- Is the length of the paper adequate, too long or too short? Adequate
- Is there any part of the paper (title, abstract, main text, formulae, symbols, figures and their captions, tables, list of references, appendixes) that needs to be clarified, reduced, added, combined, or eliminated? No
- Is the technical language precise and understandable by fellow scientists? Yes
- Is the English language of good quality, fluent, simple and easy to read and understand by a wide and diversified audience? Yes
- Is the amount and quality of supplementary material (if any) appropriate? Yes
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-127-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Polona Zupančič, 25 Sep 2023
Thank you for recognising the importance of our work and for a very thorough review and many suggestions and comments, that helped to improve the quality and readability of the manuscript. We have tried to cover all of your comments and suggestions and changed the manuscript accordingly. Our replies (marked in red) to the comments are in the attached file.
Polona Zupančič et al.
Polona Zupančič et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
245 | 70 | 17 | 332 | 26 | 8 | 8 |
- HTML: 245
- PDF: 70
- XML: 17
- Total: 332
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1