the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 22 Mar 2022
Combining seismic signal dynamic inversion and numerical modeling improves landslide process reconstruction
Yifei Cui
Xinghui Huang
Wengang Zhang
Shuyao Yin
Jiaojiao Zhou
Sheng Hu
Abstract. Landslides present a significant hazard for humans, but continuous landslide monitoring is not yet possible due to their unpredictability. Post-event reconstruction based on field survey and remote sensing cannot provide full insight into the landslide movement process. Analysis and inversion of the seismic signals generated by landside movement has started to provide valuable data for understanding the entire process of landslide movement, from initiation to cessation, along with numerical simulation, but each method has shortcomings. Simple seismic signal analysis can detect landslide occurrence, but the propagation effect generates lags. Dynamic inversion based on long-period seismic signals gives the low-frequency curve of landslide dynamic parameters, but not the high-frequency characteristics. Numerical simulation can simulate the entire movement process, but results are strongly influenced by choice of model parameters. Developing a method for combining the three techniques has become a focus for research in recent years. Here, we develop such a protocol based on analysis of the 2018 Baige landslide (China). Seismic signal dynamic inversion results are used to verify the numerical simulation, and then the numerical simulation is dynamically constrained and optimized to obtain the best numerical value. We apply the procedure to the Baige event and, combined with field/geological survey, show it provides a comprehensive and accurate method for dynamic process reconstruction. We found that the Baige landslide was triggered by detachment of the weathered layer, with severe top fault segmentation. The landslide process comprised four stages: initiation, main slip, blocking, and deposition. Multi-method mutual verification effectively reduces the inherent ambiguity of each method, and multi-method joint analysis improves the rationality and reliability of the results. The approach outlined in this study could be used to support hazard prevention and control in sensitive areas.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2859 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2859 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Yan Yan et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-19', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2022
I enjoy reading this manuscript. It proposes a new ‘combined’ approach to back-analyze seismic signals of a landslide process. The idea is great!
The methodology is technically sound. The proposed simulation process is deemed logical and the results were properly verified and discussed.
However, the writing (English language) must be carefully examined/fixed to make it easy to read and understand.
From places to places, I feel many descriptions are somehow redundant, they are telling the same idea. Please check the whole text again.
I would like to make sure that readers can apply the simulation techniques to their own landslide cases. Therefore, I suggest the DemMat, inversed and synthetic codes shall be shared to readers and are accessible to readers.
Specific comments/questions/suggestions:
- Abstract is lengthy. Please re-write for concise and clarity.
- Line 31: Using “low frequency curve" is not clear. What curve? Motion curve or others?
- Line 38: … obtain the best numerical “simulations”?
- Line 45~46: “The approach outlined in this study could be used to support hazard prevention and control in sensitive areas.” I don't think this method can support hazard prevention and control landslide hazard. It just one kind of back-calculation to understand the landslide process. What's happened has happened, so how can we prevent and control the landslide? Considering write something else that is appropriate.
- Line 137: Explain how to obtain the “Probabilistic power spectral density”, what is the technique or provide references. How you identify the ‘background noise level of the seismic station” from Fig. 3. And, how to apply it next? And why this is important?
- Line 147: What kind of "joint time-frequency domain transform" was used? Just delete 'joint'?
- Line 150: “… that corresponds to a specific moment…” What kind of ‘specific moment’?
- Line 168: "… the records were resampled to 0.2 s." What does this mean? You mean 5 Hz sampling rate?
- Line 182: “… and 9+ ðð ” Is the 9+ a typo?
- 4: Do you need to predefine the properties of the "slide bed elements"?
- Line 206: How about “We used a simulation block of 2270×1980×1680 m, with …”?
- Line 207: Is this "cells" means "elements"? Is there any other better word?
- Line 218: What are the macro and micro conversion formula? Are they important?
- Line 219: Why 40% is fine? Any prove?
- 5: Why 35 and 10 % of delta is reasonable?
- 5: Is CSI 0.6 is a commonly acceptable value? Any references?
- 5: After the adjustment of Intergranular friction coefficient ðð and damping coefficient C, don't you need to check if CSI>0.6 again? The CSI is possible smaller than 0.6, isn’t it?
- Line 252: “post-event geological survey showed sliding was mainly in a south-east-to-south direction” By observing Fig. 3, it seems that the sliding was almost in an eastward direction. Isn't it?
- 6 shows "showing signal-to-noise ratio of the low-frequency components"? Explain how to identify high and low SNR. From Fig. 6 I feel they are approximately the same SNR in the E\N\V direction, even in the low frequency range. Therefore, I treat Line 249~259 is a kind of qualitatively discussion.
- Line 272: how about “The time domain velocity recorded at …”?
- Line 279: Although I get what you want to say, please re-write the sentences: “… and the signal may also be affected by superimposition of vertical and horizontal waves, which makes the end time lag. So, the critical moments of the landslide derived from the original seismic signal would be lagged, and the duration too long.”
- 7: The time axis appears redundant times? e.g., 22:06 22:06 ...
- 7: You can show the Fig. 7 b in log-scale for better low frequency resolution.
- 7: Why choose vertical component (V) for analysis? Isn’t that the GZI east (E) component has a lower SNR, with less noise?
- Line 300: Change to “… with the time domain stages (as in Table 2), …”
- Line 309: “also, there is a clear difference from the outburst flood signal on October 12, 2018.” Can you present a figure for showing the differences between outburst flood on Oct. 12?
- 8 caption: “Corresponding absolute values are shown as dashed black lines.” How you calculate the absolute values? For what reason we need it?
- 9 caption “Red dotted lines indicate that the seismic trace was not used in the inversion.” Why not used? What are your considerations?
- I wonder whether the Fig. 14 a and b shall be switched? What is the red area in Fig. 14 b? Also, please show where are the 1st and 2nd "level platforms" in Fig. 14. I don’t quite get it from your description.
- Line 539~540: I think it is: “Part of the front edge of the landslide was detached on the right bank of the Jinsha River, slid up against the opposite slope on the left bank, and then …” You may reverse the right and left?
- Line 542: “that combing on-site” Wrong word.
- The conclusion is not concise and complete. Many parts are redundant. I suggest you rewrite. You may want to write: a brief restatement of your research problem; summarize overall findings, and the implications of your research, etc.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
Thank you for spending the time to review and assess our manuscript. As instructed, we have now supplemented the information according to the comments received from the expert reviewer. At the same time, we have also deleted the unnecessary materials pointed out by the reviewer. Please see our detailed point-by-point reply to the comments below.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-19-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-19/egusphere-2022-19-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-19/egusphere-2022-19-AC3-supplement.pdf
- AC7: 'Reply on RC1', Yifei Cui, 21 Aug 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-19', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jun 2022
This work deals with the reconstruction of landslides dynamics using seismic signals and numerical modelling, in the case of the Baige landslide. It clearly has the potential to be a very good paper, as results are, in my opinion, convincing. The manuscript is, besides, well written. However, I think some shortcomings should be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript:
- The contribution of this work, in comparison to other studies, is not clear. Using seismic data to calibrate numerical models has already been done before. If the analysis of high frequencies in seismic signals (besides, define what you mean by high frequencies) is innovative, it think it is not clear enough in the manuscript how it helps better constrain the landslide dynamics. If the main contribution of the article is using seismic data and numerical modelling to better constrain the dynamics of the Baige landslide specifically (which is perfectly okay), it should be stated more clearly.
- The methodology is not described precisely enough, and some methodological explanations are given in the Results section instead of the Methodology section. In particular, the method for estimating the landslide dynamics from seismic signal, and the method for calibrating model parameters, should be more detailed.
- The authors state that using deposits and seismic data to calibrate the model improves the quality of the simulation results, but do not illustrate it. As this is, if I’m correct, a key point of their work, this aspect could be further developed.
- The figures, and their caption, can be improved.
More details are given in the attached file.
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
-
AC5: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-19', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
Dear Prof. Fan,
On behalf of my co-authors, I am submitting the enclosed revised version of manuscript entitled “Combining seismic signal dynamic inversion and numerical modeling improves landslide process reconstruction ” for possible publication in EEarth Surface Dynamics .
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the editor and reviewer for spending the time to review and assess our manuscript. As instructed, we have now revised the manuscript according to the comments received from the expert editor and reviewer. Please see our detailed point-by-point reply to the comments in the response letter.
We have reviewed the final version of the manuscript by best of our knowledge. This manuscript has not been published in whole or in part elsewhere.
Best Regards
Sincerely yours
Yifei CuiState Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering
Department of Hydraulic Engineering
Tsinghua University,
Beijing
China -
AC6: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-19', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
Dear Prof. Fan,
On behalf of my co-authors, I am submitting the enclosed revised version of manuscript entitled “Combining seismic signal dynamic inversion and numerical modeling improves landslide process reconstruction ” for possible publication in EEarth Surface Dynamics .
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the editor and reviewer for spending the time to review and assess our manuscript. As instructed, we have now revised the manuscript according to the comments received from the expert editor and reviewer. Please see our detailed point-by-point reply to the comments in the response letter.
We have reviewed the final version of the manuscript by best of our knowledge. This manuscript has not been published in whole or in part elsewhere.
Best Regards
Sincerely yours
Yifei Cui
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering
Department of Hydraulic Engineering
Tsinghua University,
Beijing
China
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-19', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2022
I enjoy reading this manuscript. It proposes a new ‘combined’ approach to back-analyze seismic signals of a landslide process. The idea is great!
The methodology is technically sound. The proposed simulation process is deemed logical and the results were properly verified and discussed.
However, the writing (English language) must be carefully examined/fixed to make it easy to read and understand.
From places to places, I feel many descriptions are somehow redundant, they are telling the same idea. Please check the whole text again.
I would like to make sure that readers can apply the simulation techniques to their own landslide cases. Therefore, I suggest the DemMat, inversed and synthetic codes shall be shared to readers and are accessible to readers.
Specific comments/questions/suggestions:
- Abstract is lengthy. Please re-write for concise and clarity.
- Line 31: Using “low frequency curve" is not clear. What curve? Motion curve or others?
- Line 38: … obtain the best numerical “simulations”?
- Line 45~46: “The approach outlined in this study could be used to support hazard prevention and control in sensitive areas.” I don't think this method can support hazard prevention and control landslide hazard. It just one kind of back-calculation to understand the landslide process. What's happened has happened, so how can we prevent and control the landslide? Considering write something else that is appropriate.
- Line 137: Explain how to obtain the “Probabilistic power spectral density”, what is the technique or provide references. How you identify the ‘background noise level of the seismic station” from Fig. 3. And, how to apply it next? And why this is important?
- Line 147: What kind of "joint time-frequency domain transform" was used? Just delete 'joint'?
- Line 150: “… that corresponds to a specific moment…” What kind of ‘specific moment’?
- Line 168: "… the records were resampled to 0.2 s." What does this mean? You mean 5 Hz sampling rate?
- Line 182: “… and 9+ ðð ” Is the 9+ a typo?
- 4: Do you need to predefine the properties of the "slide bed elements"?
- Line 206: How about “We used a simulation block of 2270×1980×1680 m, with …”?
- Line 207: Is this "cells" means "elements"? Is there any other better word?
- Line 218: What are the macro and micro conversion formula? Are they important?
- Line 219: Why 40% is fine? Any prove?
- 5: Why 35 and 10 % of delta is reasonable?
- 5: Is CSI 0.6 is a commonly acceptable value? Any references?
- 5: After the adjustment of Intergranular friction coefficient ðð and damping coefficient C, don't you need to check if CSI>0.6 again? The CSI is possible smaller than 0.6, isn’t it?
- Line 252: “post-event geological survey showed sliding was mainly in a south-east-to-south direction” By observing Fig. 3, it seems that the sliding was almost in an eastward direction. Isn't it?
- 6 shows "showing signal-to-noise ratio of the low-frequency components"? Explain how to identify high and low SNR. From Fig. 6 I feel they are approximately the same SNR in the E\N\V direction, even in the low frequency range. Therefore, I treat Line 249~259 is a kind of qualitatively discussion.
- Line 272: how about “The time domain velocity recorded at …”?
- Line 279: Although I get what you want to say, please re-write the sentences: “… and the signal may also be affected by superimposition of vertical and horizontal waves, which makes the end time lag. So, the critical moments of the landslide derived from the original seismic signal would be lagged, and the duration too long.”
- 7: The time axis appears redundant times? e.g., 22:06 22:06 ...
- 7: You can show the Fig. 7 b in log-scale for better low frequency resolution.
- 7: Why choose vertical component (V) for analysis? Isn’t that the GZI east (E) component has a lower SNR, with less noise?
- Line 300: Change to “… with the time domain stages (as in Table 2), …”
- Line 309: “also, there is a clear difference from the outburst flood signal on October 12, 2018.” Can you present a figure for showing the differences between outburst flood on Oct. 12?
- 8 caption: “Corresponding absolute values are shown as dashed black lines.” How you calculate the absolute values? For what reason we need it?
- 9 caption “Red dotted lines indicate that the seismic trace was not used in the inversion.” Why not used? What are your considerations?
- I wonder whether the Fig. 14 a and b shall be switched? What is the red area in Fig. 14 b? Also, please show where are the 1st and 2nd "level platforms" in Fig. 14. I don’t quite get it from your description.
- Line 539~540: I think it is: “Part of the front edge of the landslide was detached on the right bank of the Jinsha River, slid up against the opposite slope on the left bank, and then …” You may reverse the right and left?
- Line 542: “that combing on-site” Wrong word.
- The conclusion is not concise and complete. Many parts are redundant. I suggest you rewrite. You may want to write: a brief restatement of your research problem; summarize overall findings, and the implications of your research, etc.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
Thank you for spending the time to review and assess our manuscript. As instructed, we have now supplemented the information according to the comments received from the expert reviewer. At the same time, we have also deleted the unnecessary materials pointed out by the reviewer. Please see our detailed point-by-point reply to the comments below.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-19-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-19/egusphere-2022-19-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-19/egusphere-2022-19-AC3-supplement.pdf
- AC7: 'Reply on RC1', Yifei Cui, 21 Aug 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-19', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jun 2022
This work deals with the reconstruction of landslides dynamics using seismic signals and numerical modelling, in the case of the Baige landslide. It clearly has the potential to be a very good paper, as results are, in my opinion, convincing. The manuscript is, besides, well written. However, I think some shortcomings should be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript:
- The contribution of this work, in comparison to other studies, is not clear. Using seismic data to calibrate numerical models has already been done before. If the analysis of high frequencies in seismic signals (besides, define what you mean by high frequencies) is innovative, it think it is not clear enough in the manuscript how it helps better constrain the landslide dynamics. If the main contribution of the article is using seismic data and numerical modelling to better constrain the dynamics of the Baige landslide specifically (which is perfectly okay), it should be stated more clearly.
- The methodology is not described precisely enough, and some methodological explanations are given in the Results section instead of the Methodology section. In particular, the method for estimating the landslide dynamics from seismic signal, and the method for calibrating model parameters, should be more detailed.
- The authors state that using deposits and seismic data to calibrate the model improves the quality of the simulation results, but do not illustrate it. As this is, if I’m correct, a key point of their work, this aspect could be further developed.
- The figures, and their caption, can be improved.
More details are given in the attached file.
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
-
AC5: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-19', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
Dear Prof. Fan,
On behalf of my co-authors, I am submitting the enclosed revised version of manuscript entitled “Combining seismic signal dynamic inversion and numerical modeling improves landslide process reconstruction ” for possible publication in EEarth Surface Dynamics .
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the editor and reviewer for spending the time to review and assess our manuscript. As instructed, we have now revised the manuscript according to the comments received from the expert editor and reviewer. Please see our detailed point-by-point reply to the comments in the response letter.
We have reviewed the final version of the manuscript by best of our knowledge. This manuscript has not been published in whole or in part elsewhere.
Best Regards
Sincerely yours
Yifei CuiState Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering
Department of Hydraulic Engineering
Tsinghua University,
Beijing
China -
AC6: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-19', Yifei Cui, 20 Aug 2022
Dear Prof. Fan,
On behalf of my co-authors, I am submitting the enclosed revised version of manuscript entitled “Combining seismic signal dynamic inversion and numerical modeling improves landslide process reconstruction ” for possible publication in EEarth Surface Dynamics .
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the editor and reviewer for spending the time to review and assess our manuscript. As instructed, we have now revised the manuscript according to the comments received from the expert editor and reviewer. Please see our detailed point-by-point reply to the comments in the response letter.
We have reviewed the final version of the manuscript by best of our knowledge. This manuscript has not been published in whole or in part elsewhere.
Best Regards
Sincerely yours
Yifei Cui
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering
Department of Hydraulic Engineering
Tsinghua University,
Beijing
China
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Yan Yan et al.
Yan Yan et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 555 | 168 | 26 | 749 | 9 | 12 |
- HTML: 555
- PDF: 168
- XML: 26
- Total: 749
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2859 KB) - Metadata XML