the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Tsunamigenic potential of unstable masses in the Gulf of Pozzuoli, Campi Flegrei, Italy
Abstract. Campi Flegrei, one of the most monitored and studied volcanic areas in the world, has recently attracted significant attention due to the reactivation of its peculiar activity, consisting into small earthquakes, geothermal phenomena and slow subsidence/rapid uplift cycles, known as bradyseism. While much of the research and of the attention focuses on volcanic manifestations, the potential hazard posed by gravitational instabilities has received little consideration. The interaction of the destabilized masses with water can trigger tsunamis, potentially affecting the whole coastline of the Gulf of Pozzuoli, which lies above the Campi Flegrei caldera. Moving from the limited available geomorphological studies of the area, a set of four scenarios (three submarine and one subaerial) are here reconstructed. These are simulated through a sequence of numerical codes, accounting for all the phases of the tsunami process, providing insights into the distribution of tsunami energy and identifying the most affected coastal stretches. Additionally, the study explores the influence of dispersion effects in the tsunami propagation and the occurrence of resonance effects in some minor inlets of the Gulf, emphasizing the importance of accounting for complex and non-linear coastal processes when treating with landslide-generated tsunamis.
- Preprint
(4192 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1400', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Apr 2025
reply
This study investigates the potential tsunami hazard from landslide scenarios in the Gulf of Pozzuoli using a sequence of numerical models. The authors present four scenarios (three submarine and one subaerial) and simulate the associated tsunamis using both shallow water (SW) and non-hydrostatic (NH) models. The study addresses important local hazard concerns in a densely populated coastal area. While the paper is generally well-structured, several critical aspects require clarification and improvement before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
Major Comments:
Landslide Scenario Definition and Assumptions
The tsunami waveforms generated by landslides are sensitive to the initial conditions, including the location, volume, geometry, and material properties of the sliding mass. The authors mention that the four scenarios were constructed based on a "worst-case credible" approach. However, the paper lacks sufficient detail on how the initial conditions, especially volume and geometry, were determined. The cited reference (Zaniboni and Armigliato, 2025) is listed as a work in progress and is not yet available, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the scenarios.Moreover, the assumption that geotechnical and geomorphic properties are similar across all four scenarios is not justified or even explicitly stated. This assumption should be clarified, as differences in material properties can significantly influence landslide dynamics and tsunami generation. For instance, variations in density, cohesion, yield strength and/or internal friction angle can lead to different failure mechanisms and velocities, thereby affecting the characteristics of the generated tsunami waves.
The authors should provide more detailed explanations for each scenario's setup, including volume estimates, slope angle, and material assumptions. If geotechnical properties are assumed identical across cases, this simplification should be clearly stated and discussed, along with a justification for why this simplification is reasonable in this context.Tsunami Generation Mechanism and Modeling Approach
The modeling approach uses a one-way coupling scheme, where landslide motion is simulated independently and used as input for tsunami generation and propagation. This approach, while computationally efficient, may be insufficient to capture certain physical mechanisms, particularly for subaerial landslides like scenario 4, where the interaction with the water column is highly dynamic and nonlinear. In reality, the water displaced by the landslide can, in turn, influence the landslide's motion.
The subaerial case involves a mass plunging from above sea level into the water with high velocity, which contrasts with the more gradual submarine slope failures of the other scenarios. Given these differences in physical processes, it is unclear whether the same numerical treatment is equally valid for both types of landslide.
The authors should justify the use of the same modeling framework across all scenarios and clearly discuss the limitations of their approach, especially regarding the subaerial case. They should acknowledge the potential limitations of the one-way coupling and discuss how this might affect the accuracy of their results.Role of Froude Number and Energy Transfer Efficiency
A crucial omission in the discussion of tsunami generation is the role of the Froude number Fr=U/gH, which characterizes the relationship between the landslide velocity (U) and the shallow water wave speed (gH). When the Froude number approaches 1, energy transfer from the landslide to the water is most efficient due to resonance-like effects. This can lead to significant amplification of the generated waves.While the authors analyze landslide velocities and acknowledge the influence of slide speed and dispersion, they do not discuss the possible amplification effects that occur when the slide velocity approaches the wave celerity. This is particularly relevant for Scenario 4.
The authors should discuss whether any of their scenarios reach near-critical Froude conditions and, if so, whether their model can appropriately represent the associated amplification. Even a simplified estimation of the Froude number for each case would enhance the paper. This analysis would provide a more complete understanding of the tsunami generation process and its potential impact.Minor Comments:
L9 "consisting into" -> “consisting of”
L38 “In the specific” -> “Specifically”
L43 “assessing” -> “by assessing”
L128 "with no back-interactions considered" -> "and back-interactions are not considered"
L134 “a finite time” ->unclear since an earthquake occurs in a finite time. Consider rephrasing to something like "a non-instantaneous generation process" or "a generation process that evolves over time".
Table 2 - I do not think Table 2 is necessary. We may replace it by a paragraph. Also Table 2 was wrongly referred to at L284 and L308. They should be Table 3 instead.
Figure 1&2 - Two figures can be combined.
Figure 3 is almost identical to Figure 2&4 of Aiello et al. (2012). I am concerned about the permission to use these figures. The authors should provide confirmation that they have obtained the necessary permissions to reproduce or adapt these figures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1400-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
136 | 23 | 7 | 166 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 136
- PDF: 23
- XML: 7
- Total: 166
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 79 | 48 |
Italy | 2 | 19 | 11 |
Netherlands | 3 | 13 | 7 |
France | 4 | 10 | 6 |
Ireland | 5 | 10 | 6 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 79