Seismic Microzonation Map for a Fixed-Jacket Platform in the Malay Basin
, Azlan Adnan 4 and Nor Hayati Ab Hamid 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for spending your valuable time reviewing our manuscript. We have attached our response herewith.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
no novelty
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for spending your valuable time to review our manuscript. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. page 1, line 38 - is it 7 cm/year or 7 mm/year? Similarly line 40, 8 cm/year or 8 mm /year
2. page 2, line 60-61 - repetitive from earlier paragraph
3. Can authors mention earthquake intensity/magnitude uniformly throughout - for example, line 64, it is in MM scale. This will help readers better.
4. Lines 60-73, this paragraph needs to be structured and phrased better for understanding of the reading
5. p.3, line 94, devastating instead of "devastated"
6. p.3, lines 100-101, says malaysian waters are free from seismic events but authors in p.2, lines 51-52 say that Malaysia has earthquakes with local epicentre too. Can you clarify?
7. p. 4, line139, what do authors mean by natural hazard in seismic hazard?
8. p. 4, lines 147-150, authors must define macro and micro zonation in generic terms and then focus for seismic hazard. Also, they must clarify on their definition. Macrozonation can also include soil parameters at regional scale. But in microzonation there are finer details on the soil parameters. Authors must bring out the difference clearly.
9. Fig. 3 - Geotechnical hazard is not inclusive of damage to structures - Natural hazards is inclusive of seismic hazard and not vice versa. Please correct.
10. p.5, lines 155 - 156, report the source of macrozonation map from which PGa values were taken and its scale.
11. p.5, lines 160-161, soil factors were ignored so what factors were used to construct the macro-zonation map?
12. Fig.4 mentions soil and geologic parameters but there is no discussion on the geotechnical parameters
13. p.8, line 252- indicate the soil classification of the D and E type of soil for readers to understand in generic terms
14. What is the source from which time history was collected? Include the temporal details of the seismic events used for the study
15. p.10, line 304 - what analysis or tests were conducted on soil. Report the soil properties
16. Table 3 - T=0.0 sec PGA is misleading. Please clarify
17. p.10, line 304 - authors report the use of two borehole data but in p.11, line 328 authors say they have used 19 borehole data. Please clarify
18. Fig. 8 can be presented as a table and please mention the soil material type using standard soil classification below the table for readers to understand the geomaterial for which analysis is carried out.
19. Authors must clearly differentiate between vulnerability and hazard - p.12, lines 360-371, relates to these in similar terms which is not so. Please present it clearly.
20. Fig. 9, what are the various thematic layers used to create the micro-zonation map?
21. p.14, line 429, authors can please clarify what is D4?
22. Section 4 - The authors have not clearly defined the area of their study. They keep referring to different sites and soil types D and E. There is no discussion on the geotechnical properties of the soil. Terms like D1, D2, etc. have not been defined and makes reading difficult.
23. p.17, line 525, they mention that there is hard clay. At what depth. Authors should present the borelogs used for the analysis and zonation.
24. Section 4.1.2 - Authors should clearly state the thematic factors used for zonation.
25. p.20, line 576, again there is a confusion between vulnerability and hazard. Please clarify
26. In figures 14-18 and boundary is marked. Please provide details on this boundary fixed. Include the scale and legend
27. p.21, line 588, authors have not discussed the different geologic conditions at all. Please include
28. Without saying what is soil type D or E, readers cannot relate to the soil amplification factor. D1 - D4 are they the different layers? There is no clarity
29. Fig. 21-25, include scale
30. Discussion section is more of repetitions from section 4 and must be strengthened.
31. Recommendations section has no new input other than from section 4 and 5. Consider removing it.
General
32. Manuscript needs major restructuring
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for spending your valuable time to review our manuscript. We have attached our response herewith.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
ACCEPT
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
I hereby attached the corrected version of the paper.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The following suggestions are to be incorporated before acceptance, these cannot be removed while restructuring the manuscript
1. Authors have removed the Fig. 4 from the earlier version of the manuscript, the figure has to be included and the geotechnical and geological properties has to be discussed
2. Convert Fig. 6 to a proper table and then add in the manuscript. Tables should not be in the form of figures
2. Fig. 7, 8 and 9 are missing. The manuscript shows discontinuity in the number of figures
3. Almost all the questions are responded with removal of content rather than addressing the issue. Authors should address the query raised by the reviewer in the Point 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, 31 (first review)
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
We have addressed the comments as follows and attached:
Point 1: Authors have removed the Fig. 4 from the earlier version of the manuscript, the figure has to be included and the geotechnical and geological properties has to be discussed.
Response 1: Fig. 4 was removed as it was considered an unnecessary figure by Reviewer 1 since no detailed geological information is used in the paper. This paper did not cover up to that extent.
Point 2: Convert Fig. 6 to a proper table and then add in the manuscript. Tables should not be in the form of figures.
Response 2: Fig. 6 was converted into Table 4 as suggested.
Point 3: Fig. 7, 8 and 9 are missing. The manuscript shows discontinuity in the number of figures.
Response 3: Correction was done for figure numbering. No more discontinuity in the number of figures.
Point 4: Almost all the questions are responded with removal of content rather than addressing the issue. Authors should address the query raised by the reviewer in the Point 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, and 31 (first review).
Response 4: Responses for the query raised by the reviewer in the Point 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, 31 (first review) are as follows:
Point 9. Fig. 3 - Geotechnical hazard is not inclusive of damage to structures - Natural hazards are inclusive of seismic hazards and not vice versa. Please correct.
Response 9: Correction was done as suggested. Please refer Line 97-102.
Point 10. p.5, lines 155 - 156, report the source of macrozonation map from which PGa values were taken and its scale.
Response 10: The PGa value for current study was discussed in section 2.3.1 Peak Ground Acceleration (PGa). The values used were presented in Table 3. The source was stated in Line 137-138.
Point 11. p.5, lines 160-161, soil factors were ignored so what factors were used to construct the macro-zonation map?
Response 11: Macrozonation map was produced based on the prediction of vibration received by bedrock. The effect of the soil layers as the vibration travel in an upward direction was ignored. In the seismic event, the energy was dispersed to the surroundings. The attenuation equation was used to predict parameters such as peak ground acceleration (Pga) and also spectral acceleration (Sa) at any specified site or study area. This value is considered as the vibration received by bedrock and was presented as a macrozonation map. This was highlighted in Line 104-109.
Point 12. Fig.4 mentions soil and geologic parameters but there is no discussion on the geotechnical parameters
Response 12: This point was answered in Point 1 of the second Revision. “Fig. 4 was removed as it was considered an unnecessary figure by Reviewer 1 since no detailed geological information is used in the paper.” This paper did not cover up to that extent.
Point 15. p.10, line 304 - what analysis or tests were conducted on soil. Report the soil properties
Response 15: Cone Penetration Test with pore pressure measurements (CPTU) was performed (Please refer to Line 256-257). A sample of soil properties was presented in Section 2.1.2 Soil Data. A sample of soil properties was presented in Table 2.
Point 20. Fig. 9, what are the various thematic layers used to create the micro-zonation map?
Response 20: Fig. 9 was removed as suggested by Reviewer 1 and it was replaced by sentences in a paragraph, see Line 338-340. “a layer of map was added which portrayed a map of Malaysia before continuing with adding a Microsoft table in ArcMap as the input data, for this case, input data consist of coordinates and PSa values.” Map of Malaysia was the first layer, followed by coordinates of study area and plotting of contour.
Point 31. Recommendations section has no new input other than from section 4 and 5. Consider removing it.
Response 31: The recommendation section was removed as suggested in the first review.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
