Evaluation of Damages to the Architectural Heritage of Naples as a Result of the Strongest Earthquakes of the Southern Apennines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

• The description of the methodology and the conclusions are missing in the current version.
• Line 20: Please avoid the use of acronyms in the abstract, e.g. MCS, or explain their meaning the first time that you use it.
• Why do you use the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MCS) and not the moment magnitude scale (MMS)? I hope to find the explanation ahead in the manuscript.
• Lines 35-37: Do you propose a seismic microzonation for Naples?

Introduction

• Line 62 and 63: In which year happened the earthquake that you mention?
• Please improve Figure 1, including a map with the location of Naples in the world, the location of Naples in Italy and then the current figure to give a context to the reader.
• Please explain the objective of your research in this section
• It is necessary to include a paragraph at the end of this section, explaining the structure of the manuscript.

-157.

• Section 2. Geological settings of Naples must be part of the introduction.
• This paper could be useful for your research:

Pavlova, I., et al., Global overview of the geological hazard exposure and disaster risk awareness at world heritage sites. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2017. 28: p. 151

• Section 3. Historical and architectural heritage must be part of the introduction.
• Line 138. Please replace the word ‘since’ by ‘by’.
• There are no literature references between lines 185 and 239.

Methodology

• Line 122 to 127. Which is the source of these categories for buildings damage degree classification?
• Line 133. What is the name of the algorithm?
• Please include a diagram to explain the methodology, because it is not clear what method you applied.
• Table 1, 2,3,4,5. Please be sure that the head of the table is repeated on each page.
• Table 1. In the categories for the classification of building damage, there should be category named: ‘middle damage’, instead of going straight from ‘minor’ to ‘serious’. I would change the word ‘serious’ by ‘severe’. Was not there any collapsed building? Was not there any collapsed building? otherwise, this category is also missing: 'collapsed.'
• Why do you use macroseismic intensity maps, but use and Isoseismal map in Figure 9.

Results and discussion

• Lines 423 to 425 must be in the introduction section
• Lines 431 to 435 must be in the methodology section and the categories listed in a table.
• I would suggest to divide this section

Conclusions

• This section needs much more elaboration. It is must contain conclusions about the methodology implemented and not only be focused on an inventory of results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Seismic hazard estimation of Naples from the evaluation of the damages inferred from Southern

Apennines strongest earthquakes on the architectural heritage

Germana Gaudiosi, Giuliana Alessio, Rosa Nappi, Valentina Noviello, Efisio Spiga and Sabina Porfido

Taking into account the large impact of the strong earthquakes of Southern Apennines upon Naples, undoubtedly the subject of the paper is of highest interest. However, there are in my opinion two major shortcomings:

1. The goal of the paper is not obvious. “The seismic hazard estimation” in the title is not justified by in presentation. Therefore, I propose to change the title, for example “Evaluation of the damages caused by the Southern Apennines strongest earthquakes on the architectural heritage of Naples”. Although not explicitly declared by the authors, the paper looks like a sort of reviewing of all the data related to the strong earthquakes of Southern Apennines effect upon the Naples city. If this is true, the authors should state it openly.

2. Clearly, the paper gathers a lot of information from previous investigations. Some of them are provided by publications in Italian (e.g., [6], [7]) which are not easily accessible. From the authors’ presentation it is not obvious what their work brings in addition to the previous publications (from the Abstract and in the Introduction). It is important that authors underline what their contribution is adding up to the existing literature.

The tables reporting the damage on historical buildings for different earthquakes (Tables 2 – 5) should be presented in the Appendix or as Supplementary material.

I suggest also a few small corrections as follows:

Row 45: catalogues instead of catalogs

Row 145: findings instead of finds

Row 165-166: please rewrite the sentence!

Row 244-245: Change the sentence. For example: “Consequently, devastating effects due to these seismic events upon the historical Neapolitan urban area were recorded, reaching in some cases levels of damage up to VIII MCS”.

Row 257-258: Change the sentence, as follows: “It was a very complex event, with five main shocks triggered along the axis of the Apennines”

Row 322: hit instead of rocked

Row 374: zones instead of zone

Row 391: determined instead of induced

Row 411: was instead of is

Row 412-413: change to: “where the infirmary and part of the refectory and some of the surrounding rooms on the first and second floor collapsed”

Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: age of building instead of century of building

Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9: please use the same symbol (either dot, square or triangle) for the damage points!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

• Thanks for including the methodology.
• Please be aware of a misspelling word in line 37:’poupose’, that hampers the understanding of the sentence, please correct.
• Please delete this phrase in line 42: ‘by the technicians in charge e.g. engineers, architects, and geologist’. It does not add value to the text.
• I feel that still, an appropriate conclusion is missing.
• If you are using British spelling, please use single quotation marks (‘), this observation applied to lines 32, 76, 255, 256, 257, 315, 318, 348, 499, 503,505, 546, 547,554,630 and 63.

Introduction

• Good that you included the location of Naples in the world, but please highligh the square on the corner, or connect it with a line with the location of Naples, because I had troubles to locate it.
• Not, the text in lines 246-250 does not correspond at all to the description of an objective, Please include the objective in the introduction, not in the methodology section.
• Good that you have included this paragraph, but I would replace the word ‘chapter’ by ‘section’ in lines 80, 83 and 85. Because it is a paper, not a book.
• Very good the historical and architectural heritage. A bit long though, but I hope it would be accepted by the editor and the other reviewers.

Methodology

•  I suggest to change the name of this category: ‘great damage (GD)’ to ‘Major damage’, as you have before ‘Minor damage’(line 248) to be consistent in the document. This observation also applies to the conventions in Figure 8.
• Please include the category ‘collapse’ in the head of Table 1.
• why do not include the name of the Silverman algorithm in the text?
• Do not forget that a picture is worth a thousand words, regarding the requested diagram to explain the methodology.

Results and discussion

• In-Line 459, are you sure that you are talking about ‘complete’ factors, or are you talking about ‘complex’ factors?.

Conclusions

• Please be consistent with the spelling. In this section, the word ‘centre’ appears written as ‘center’, which is the American spelling. Please do not mix American and British spelling.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Abstract

• Thanks for including the methodology.
• Please be aware of a misspelling word in line 37:’poupose’, that hampers the understanding of the sentence, please correct.
• Please delete this phrase in line 42: ‘by the technicians in charge e.g. engineers, architects, and geologist’. It does not add value to the text.
• I feel that still, an appropriate conclusion is missing.
• If you are using British spelling, please use single quotation marks (‘), this observation applied to lines 32, 76, 255, 256, 257, 315, 318, 348, 499, 503,505, 546, 547,554,630 and 63.

Response: We modified our paper according all of your latest advices.

Introduction

• Good that you included the location of Naples in the world, but please highlight the square on the corner, or connect it with a line with the location of Naples, because I had troubles to locate it.

Response: We improved Figure 1 according to the latest reviewer suggestion.

• Not, the text in those lines do not correspond at all to the description of an objective, Please include the objective in the introduction, not in the methodology section.

Response: I'm sorry I made a mistake. The purpose had already been inserted in the Introduction of the first version of the paper, from line 75 to line 77 of the new version of manuscript.

• Good that you have included this paragraph, but I would replace the word ‘chapter’ by ‘section’ in lines 80, 83 and 85. Because it is a paper, not a book. suggestion

Response: We modified the text according to the reviewer suggestion.

• Very good, a bit long though, but I hope it would be accepted by editor and the other reviewers.

Response: Yes, of course both the editor and the reviewer2 accepted the changes about this section.

Methodology

• Ok, those are Italian references, therefore I suggest to change the name of this category: ‘great damage (GD)’ to ‘Major damage’, as you have before ‘Minor damage’(line 248) to be consistent in the document. This observation also applies to the conventions in Figure 8.

Response: we thank you for your suggestion and we agree with you but we would have a problem with the acronym MD that would become equal to MD of Minor Damage and you would no longer understand the difference. Therefore we do not modify the text.

Please include the category ‘collapse’ in the head of Table 1.

Response: We modified the word according to the reviewer suggestions

• Good, why do not include the name of the algorithm in the text?

Response: We included the name of the algorithm in the text.

Please include a diagram to explain the methodology, because it is not clear what method you applied.

Response: We expanded the explanation of the methodology in this chapter also according the reviewer2 suggestions

• Good but do not forget that a picture is worth a thousand words. 

Why do you use macroseismic intensity maps, but use and Isoseismal map in Figure 9.

Response: Considering that the earthquake has an intensity I = X MCS, we use the isoseismal map because it best visualizes the propagation and attenuation of the intensity over the whole of southern Italy.

• OK
• I would reduce the size, and change the form of the icon (circular or rotated square 45) for the location of the earthquakes in 1805.

Response: We modified the Fig. 9 for the 1980 earthquake adding the epicentral location according to the reviewer suggestion and also replacing the damage figure in which we modified the symbol of the damage points to make them same to those of the figures 4, 5, 6, 8, according to the reviewer2 suggestion.

Results and discussion

Additional observations

• In-Line 459, are you sure that you are talking about ‘complete’ factors, or are you talking about ‘complex’ factors?.

Response: We modified the word according to the reviewer advise.

Conclusions

• Very good. Please be consistent with the spelling. In this section, the word ‘centre’ appears written as ‘center’, which is American spelling. Please do not mix American and British spelling.

Response: We replaced the word ‘center’ with ‘centre’ as suggested by the reviewer

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responds are appropriate and the revisions significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, I am in favour for its publication in Applied Sciences. 

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the review for the useful suggestions which helped us to improve the original manuscript.