Analysis of Peak Ground Acceleration Attenuation Characteristics in the Pazarcik Earthquake, Türkiye

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Comments on the Paper Titled: "Analysis of Peak Ground Acceleration Attenuation Characteristics in the Pazarcik Earthquake, Turkey" by Wei Wan, Jingshan Bo, Wenhao Qi, Da Peng, Qi Li, Yushi Duan.

This study takes advantage of Turkey's robust seismic network to compile a substantial dataset of strong motion records from the 2023 Pazarcik earthquake (Mw7.7), providing valuable foundational data for investigating ground motion characteristics. The authors attempt to characterize the attenuation behavior of PGA and EPA data related to the Pazarcik earthquake as a function of distance. They employ two iterative algorithms, the optimization algorithm, and orthogonal distance regression, to offer insights useful for seismic impact estimation and seismic action prediction in civil engineering for earthquake-resistant design.

While the subject issue is critical and timely for enhancing our capacity to accurately predict ground motions resulting from significant future earthquakes, the results must demonstrate robustness and reliability. Additionally, the presentation of the findings and their indications for utility and applicability need to be communicated clearly to guide hazard and risk mitigation in the study area.

As the authors rightly point out in the introduction, various authors have made substantial efforts to derive Ground Motion models from a wealth of strong motion data for Turkey. It is somewhat surprising that this study did not attempt to appreciate or compare its findings with those from previous research efforts. This point could be crucial for evaluating the utility of these models in future seismic hazard assessments. It's essential to determine if the ground motion recorded during the Pazarcik earthquake aligns with these existing ground motion models or presents discrepancies.

Additionally, there is a lack of clarity regarding why attenuation curves were exclusively calculated for PGA and EPA and not extended to other ground motion intensity measures such as PGV and SA. Addressing this deletion would contribute to the comprehensiveness of the study.

Furthermore, concerns arise regarding the uncertainties associated with the regressions, which are not presented in terms of standard deviations or confidence intervals. To strengthen the paper, it's important to incorporate these statistical measures.

Another key aspect is the comparison with the Wenchuan earthquake, and the motivation needs to be explained in the discussion section. Justification for this comparison is essential, especially concerning whether these earthquakes are comparable in faulting mechanisms and hypocentral depth. This information is crucial as it can impact the differences observed in attenuation curves. The authors are encouraged to provide a robust explanation for this comparison.

Before considering the paper suitable for publication, several additional issues require attention, primarily in the form of clarifications and discussions on the applicability of the study. Below, I have outlined some specific comments that, when addressed, could contribute to enhancing the manuscript.

1. Introduction section: Please define PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) and EPA (Equivalent Peak Acceleration) since they are introduced for the first time in the manuscript.
2. Line 15: Clarify the meaning. The seismic wave propagation characteristics and attenuation law as a function of distance. 
3. Line 17: Specify whether these coefficients or values (0.577-0.673 times) are considered extreme or normal for each earthquake. Provide a brief explanation in the following sections when you state these variations.
4. Line 21: Explain the meaning behind why the Pazarcik earthquake differs from other cases or the Wenchuan earthquake. Offer any clues or insights.
5. In the introduction section, at line 85, emphasize the importance of EPA calculations and explain why you attempt to calculate this parameter. Elaborate on how EPA characterizes and explains this extreme crustal event and its relevance in engineering applications and designs within the region.
6. Line 196: Address why data processing is conducted again when AFAD provides processed data. Provide an explanation.
7. Line 215: Define the difference between the orthogonal distance fitting method and the optimization algorithm.
8. Lines 86-88: Elaborate on why you state, "We selected appropriate attenuation models. Other models are not suitable for this earthquake." Did you perform tests and comparisons with other available Ground Motion Models (GMMs)?
9. Lines 105-106: Specify the distance factors considered as geometric attenuation and non-elastic attenuation. Hu (2008) reference is in Chinese and not appropriate.
10. Line 125: Explain the difference between PGA and EPA.
11. In Table 1, indicate the number of stations contained. Please include this information in the text at line 166.
12. Line 200: Correct 'GPA' to 'PGA.'
13. Improve all figures and table titles for clarity.
14. Line 219: Provide more information about the physical meaning of the B coefficient and clarify which physical component is removed when assuming it is zero.
15. Figures 2, 3, and 4: Use different symbols for dots since beachballs are commonly used for defining focal mechanisms in seismology.
16. Modify the Y-axis of Figure 4a to account for the presentation of a horizontal component.
17. Please provide information about the Wenchuan earthquake, including its rupture mechanisms, hypocentral depth, and the motivation for comparing it with the Pazarcik earthquake.
18. Conclude with recommendations or discuss the applicability of your results for risk reduction and seismic hazard mitigation in the study area.

These revisions may help to enhance the manuscript's clarity and overall quality.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article includes the examination of PGA values for the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, which can be called the disaster of the century for Türkiye. The article is up to date in this respect.

·         Please use Türkiye instead of Turkey. Because Türkiye is official name of the country.

·         It is mandatory to include information about the structural damages caused by the earthquake in the article. It would be useful to add at least one paragraph. Please use this and similar resources: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107405; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158937; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107521.

·         Previous researches should be explained between line 116 to 123.

·         In Figure 1, explanations should be in English. For instance ivmeölçer ist. Should be translated to English. On the other hand, Why PGV and PGD is demonstrated in the map ?

·         Table 2 needs more explanation. For instance what does meaning of the values in phantasies? How could define the “uncertain site category”?

·         How did you calculate the A, B, C coefficients in Table3 and 4? It is not clear. Please explain details.

·         Although the article is generally good but it is unclear where some of the information comes from. It is very important for writers to pay attention to this.

·         Authors are advised to check the up-to-dateness of the information they provide. Because the relevant institutions in Türkiye have made some updates.

·         Please pay attention to the subscripts and superscripts. (Mw can be M_w).

·         At the end of the introduction, please clearly state the novelty and distinctiveness of your work.

·         It would be useful to add studies on PGA values for the Eastern Anatolia region where earthquakes occur and the Eastern Anatolian fault.

·         How local ground conditions are taken into account should be added to the article.

·         "Line 269, please correct the Figure number (Figure 6)."

 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Many suggested corrections have been made.

Yours Sincerely