A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data

Gironelli, Veronica; Luzi, Lucia; Antonucci, Andrea; Rovida, Andrea

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323

Preprints

11 May 2026

| 11 May 2026

A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data

Veronica Gironelli, Lucia Luzi, Andrea Antonucci, and Andrea Rovida

Abstract. Macroseismic intensity data are a fundamental source of information for characterising historical earthquakes. This study presents a methodology to constrain the sources of large earthquake through the analysis and modelling of macroseismic intensity data. The proposed workflow consists of three main stages: (1) the identification and removal of outlier intensity data points; (2) the revision of macroseismic earthquake parameters (epicentral location and magnitude); and (3) the construction of three-dimensional (3D) seismogenic sources, simulation of ground shaking including site effects, and a subsequent residual analysis. The application of this workflow to a set of case studies from the parametric catalogue of Italian earthquakes demonstrates that the implemented approach allows the identification of seismogenic sources for large to moderate magnitude events, which are consistent with macroseismic data, geological structures and ground motion data, when available. The results of this study can have direct implications for seismic hazard assessment and shaking scenario modelling. The proposed workflow can be systematically applied to reconstruct the seismogenic sources of the strongest Italian historical earthquakes (Mw ≥ 5.5).

Received: 23 Apr 2026 – Discussion started: 11 May 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2407 KB)

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 (2407 KB)

Supplement (1213 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

24 Sep 2026

A methodological workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data

Veronica Gironelli, Lucia Luzi, Andrea Antonucci, and Andrea Rovida

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4569–4588, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-26-4569-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-26-4569-2026, 2026

Short summary

Veronica Gironelli, Lucia Luzi, Andrea Antonucci, and Andrea Rovida

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-2323', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 May 2026

Title: A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data by Gironelli et al.
The manuscript presents a well-structured and scientifically valuable workflow for reconstructing seismogenic sources using macroseismic intensity data. The integration of pre-processing, source reconstruction, ground-motion simulation, and residual analysis is comprehensive and methodologically sound. The topic is highly relevant for historical seismology and seismic hazard assessment, especially in regions with limited instrumental data but abundant macroseismic observations. The workflow is clearly explained and supported by suitable case studies, including both instrumental and historical earthquakes, thereby strengthening the applicability of the proposed methodology. The manuscript demonstrates a strong use of Italian seismic databases, such as DBMI15, CPTI15, DISS, and ITACA, and effectively integrates multidisciplinary datasets.

- in abstract change “This study presents a methodology to constrain the sources of large earthquakes...”
Additionally, please mention the novelty of integrating residual analysis with outlier detection in the abstract.
- The literature review is extensive; however, it may benefit from a short paragraph emphasizing the limitations of existing approaches and how the proposed workflow addresses them.
-Some long sentences could be simplified for better readability, particularly lines 50–65.
- The explanation of the pre-processing stage and outlier removal using the Gomez-Capera et al. (2024) IPE is scientifically sound.
- The authors may consider discussing the sensitivity of the results to the selected 3σ threshold for outlier identification.
- The methodology would benefit from a small flowchart legend explaining abbreviations such as BE, RMSE, GOM20, and OLI22 for readers unfamiliar with the terminology.
- The choice of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) scaling relations is appropriate, but the limitations of applying these empirical relations to historical earthquakes could be briefly discussed.
- The discussion of the 1990 Potenza earthquake clearly illustrates how outliers can bias epicentral estimation.
- In Tables 3 and 5, it may help readers if the best-performing source configurations are highlighted using bold formatting in addition to the asterisk.
- Some figure captions are very long and may be shortened for improved readability.
- Increase font size in several figures (especially residual maps and legends), as some labels are difficult to read.
- Table formatting could be improved slightly for better alignment of columns and readability.
Corrections
“large earthquake” → “large earthquakes”
“best fits the data is identified” → “best-fitting fault is identified”
“ground shaking including the site effects” → “ground shaking including site effects”

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Veronica Gironelli, 21 Jun 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2323/egusphere-2026-2323-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-2323', Josep Batlló, 15 Jun 2026

Review of “A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data”

The paper “A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data” submitted for publication in NHESS by Gironelli, Luzi, Antonucci and Rovida, introduces a methodology to elucidate among different earthquake sources as origin of a given event using macroseismic data.
I think this is a good contribution, showing new ways to investigate among competing earthquakes sources using macroseismic data and contributing, at the very end, to a better assessment of regional seismic hazard.
The paper is using data and methodologies already available. The key point is how to use them for the proposed objectives. The methodology is a quantitative and repeatable one, based in a workflow using available tools, easy to implement, in wise manner.
The process (workflow in the authors terminology) starts with a selection of available macroseismic fields for a given earthquake, elimination of IDP outliers (because they are not properly assigned or due to factors as local amplification, accumulation of damage, etc.) and epicentral parameter recalculation using Boxer algorithm. Then, the reviewed epicentral parameters and the characteristics of the possible seismic sources for the event (obtained from DISS) are used to calculate synthetic macroseismic fields with two different GMICE commonly used in Italy. Finally, fitting of the synthetic macroseismic fields with the real one, based on statistical parameters gives the best fitting seismic source for the investigated event. Certainly, this methodology is not going to solve/clarify all cases; but it may be useful in many of them.
Databases, models and examples used in this paper apply to Italy; but the methodology is applicable elsewhere if similar information (IDPs, GMICEs, earthquake sources/active faults) is available.

About the article itself, as it has been submitted for publication, in an overview, and to my understanding, it is properly written. It is quite long. As four cases are analyzed in a very similar way, it may look repetitive, but I do not see another way to show them properly (they may be presented as supplementary material; but the authors try to show different cases -data quality, fault type, etc.- and it is good to show all of them at the same level). Presentation and discussion of the different topics covered are well organized. The examples have been properly selected and are presented with enough detail level. Figures are appropriate and clear. Finally, the bibliography covers well the topics/issues presented and is quite comprehensive.
The presented results are relevant for the improvement of local/regional identification of true earthquake sources when different candidates are available. Also, even not said explicitly, the methodology may be useful to assess more confident epicentral parameters when available macroseismic data show inconsistencies. Moreover, the presented methodologies can be used in many other places worldwide and the submitted paper can be used as guide for similar studies elsewhere. Thus, I think the submitted paper fits properly on the scope of NHESS.
I’ll not go into many specific details on the submitted written text. It is good for me. But I’ll point some questions and a few items I think may be improved and/or clarified.
-----------------
Title: I’m in doubt… Maybe the title should be “A methodology for…”. Then, in the article body, on presenting the methodology, there is a workflow to be followed. Maybe the editor has a better view about what to use.
Lines 38/39.- Citations (Gasperini and Ferrari, 1995, 2000) are not in the reference list.
Lines 75 and 86.- At line 75 you mention the IPE of Sibol (1987). It is used in Boxer. In line 86 you are referring the IPE of Gomez-Caper at al. (2024). I assume you are using the last one to generate the synthetic IDP; but not in Boxer. Am I right?? Using one IPE for earthquake parameters and another for synthetics does not look very nice (or coherent). I agree it is the easiest way. Other way, you should recompile Boxer.
Line 137.- Citation (Tinti et al, 2016) is not in the reference list.
Line 174.- I think citation (Pondrelli, 2002) is wrong.
Line 176.- Maybe on citing Rossi et al, (2019) it should be indicated these data will be called ROSAL019 here. Otherwise, ROSAL019 is found for the first time in figure 3 caption.
Lines 221/223.- It will be good to give a reference for the problem of saturation exhibited by OLI22.
Lines 230/231.- Are you fixing thresholds for BE and RMSE arbitrarily or have you some previous experience on this topic.
Line 281.- Citation (Westaway et al, 1989) is not found in the reference list.
Lines 310/314.- Thus, your choice is META_04 because META_007 does not feet properly with the geological setting, isn’t it??
Lines 328 and 344.- See note about Pondrelli in the reference list.
Lines 683/685.- For coherence with the body text (line 327), this reference should start as OGS-RSFVG, Istituto…
Line 688.- Again, for coherence with the body text (line 140), this reference should start as ISC, International…
Lines 745/749.- It should be clarified which article is “Pondrelli et al, 2006a and 2006b”. Check also in the body text.
Lines 798/802.- Please, check alphabetical order.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Veronica Gironelli, 21 Jun 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2323/egusphere-2026-2323-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

ED: Submit a revised manuscript (24 Jun 2026) by Seda Yolsal-Çevikbilen

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the submission of your paper “A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data” to NHESS.

As you know, two reviewers have now provided detailed reviews, which you have replied in detail to. Both reviewers recommended some revisions before the publication. I have also carefully read the manuscript and agree with the reviewers' assessments. You can find my additional comments below.

General Comments
The manuscript is generally well prepared; however, some revisions are necessary, particularly concerning the contents of the sections (e.g. Introduction, Discussion, References) and the presentation of the results. First of all, I think that the quality of the figures needs substantial improvement. The text displayed on the maps is too small, making it difficult to read and interpret. In addition, the color scales, legends, symbols, active faults, and map layouts should be redesigned and standardized to enhance clarity and visual quality. Another issue concerns the use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript. Throughout the manuscript, abbreviations are repeatedly written together with their full explanations, resulting in unnecessary repetition. Once an abbreviation has been defined, it should be used consistently throughout the text. In addition, the study appears to be largely based on the historical seismicity of Italy, and a new methodological framework (flowchart/workflow) has been developed using these datasets. I suggest that the manuscript would benefit from a broader review of the relevant scientific literature as the literature review in the manuscript appears to be rather weak. Including additional recent studies representing different datasets and methodological approaches would strengthen the scientific background of the study and provide a broader context for evaluating the proposed methodology. Besides, a more comprehensive discussion of these studies would enrich the discussion section and help to better emphasize the motivation, necessity, and scientific contribution of the present work.

Figure 1: It would be better to write the geographical coordinates of the map (e.g. latitude and longitude). The 24 earthquakes (starred) are not seen clearly on the map. Please write “N” on the North symbol.
Figure 2: Please explain the black square plotted on the map. It would be better to write the date and location of the earthquake on the map (a).
Figure 3a,b: a) The font of the text is too small. b) Please write a few locations on the map that will help readers identify the study area more easily. Furthermore, I recommend adding an inset map showing the position of the study area within Italy (see Figs. 5, 6)

Line 39: Please provide the reference of “Bakun and Wentworth, 1997” in the references section.
Line 40: Please write “,” instead of “;” between 2019 and 2023 in the citation of Sbarra et al.
Line 139: There is no reference of “Dziewonski, 1981” in the References section.
Line 766: Please check the date of the citation/reference (1923 or 1932?)

The locations mentioned in the manuscript should be indicated on the maps to help readers identify and better understand the study area (e.g., Amatrice, Irpinia, Abruzzi, Molise, Calabria, Schio, southern Alps, the Po and Veneto plains, Posina, Besenello, Marche as such).
Lines 215: The abbreviation of GMICE has already been explained in the text (see Line 31). Please check throughout the text.
Line 285: “Between Event-BE” and "RMSE" have already been explained in the text (see Line 225, 226).
Line 399: The abbreviation of DISS has already been explained in the text (see Line 208). Please check throughout the text.
Line 400: It should be “reverse faulting”.
Line 401: It should be “focal mechanism solution”.
Line 186, 466, 471, 479, 497: Please indicate locations of Mt. Vettore fault system, Apennine fold-and-thrust belt, the Umbria-Marche ridge, Montiego thrust, Sassorotto and Col Lungo faults, Mt. Nerone fault system on the map.

As a result, I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript.

Along with the revised manuscript, please include the following: 
- A detailed author’s response to the reviewers’ comments
- A version of the manuscript with tracked changes, highlighting all modifications made in response to the reviews. 

I look forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript which I will then send out for further review to either the previous reviewers (if they agree) or new reviewers.

Kind regards,

Seda Yolsal-Çevikbilen
NHESS Editor

Hide

AR by Veronica Gironelli on behalf of the Authors (30 Jun 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Jul 2026) by Seda Yolsal-Çevikbilen

RR by Josep Batlló (28 Jul 2026)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (10 Aug 2026)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (10 Aug 2026) by Seda Yolsal-Çevikbilen

AR by Veronica Gironelli on behalf of the Authors (01 Sep 2026) Manuscript

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-2323', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 May 2026

Title: A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data by Gironelli et al.
The manuscript presents a well-structured and scientifically valuable workflow for reconstructing seismogenic sources using macroseismic intensity data. The integration of pre-processing, source reconstruction, ground-motion simulation, and residual analysis is comprehensive and methodologically sound. The topic is highly relevant for historical seismology and seismic hazard assessment, especially in regions with limited instrumental data but abundant macroseismic observations. The workflow is clearly explained and supported by suitable case studies, including both instrumental and historical earthquakes, thereby strengthening the applicability of the proposed methodology. The manuscript demonstrates a strong use of Italian seismic databases, such as DBMI15, CPTI15, DISS, and ITACA, and effectively integrates multidisciplinary datasets.

- in abstract change “This study presents a methodology to constrain the sources of large earthquakes...”
Additionally, please mention the novelty of integrating residual analysis with outlier detection in the abstract.
- The literature review is extensive; however, it may benefit from a short paragraph emphasizing the limitations of existing approaches and how the proposed workflow addresses them.
-Some long sentences could be simplified for better readability, particularly lines 50–65.
- The explanation of the pre-processing stage and outlier removal using the Gomez-Capera et al. (2024) IPE is scientifically sound.
- The authors may consider discussing the sensitivity of the results to the selected 3σ threshold for outlier identification.
- The methodology would benefit from a small flowchart legend explaining abbreviations such as BE, RMSE, GOM20, and OLI22 for readers unfamiliar with the terminology.
- The choice of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) scaling relations is appropriate, but the limitations of applying these empirical relations to historical earthquakes could be briefly discussed.
- The discussion of the 1990 Potenza earthquake clearly illustrates how outliers can bias epicentral estimation.
- In Tables 3 and 5, it may help readers if the best-performing source configurations are highlighted using bold formatting in addition to the asterisk.
- Some figure captions are very long and may be shortened for improved readability.
- Increase font size in several figures (especially residual maps and legends), as some labels are difficult to read.
- Table formatting could be improved slightly for better alignment of columns and readability.
Corrections
“large earthquake” → “large earthquakes”
“best fits the data is identified” → “best-fitting fault is identified”
“ground shaking including the site effects” → “ground shaking including site effects”

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Veronica Gironelli, 21 Jun 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2323/egusphere-2026-2323-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-2323', Josep Batlló, 15 Jun 2026

Review of “A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data”

The paper “A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data” submitted for publication in NHESS by Gironelli, Luzi, Antonucci and Rovida, introduces a methodology to elucidate among different earthquake sources as origin of a given event using macroseismic data.
I think this is a good contribution, showing new ways to investigate among competing earthquakes sources using macroseismic data and contributing, at the very end, to a better assessment of regional seismic hazard.
The paper is using data and methodologies already available. The key point is how to use them for the proposed objectives. The methodology is a quantitative and repeatable one, based in a workflow using available tools, easy to implement, in wise manner.
The process (workflow in the authors terminology) starts with a selection of available macroseismic fields for a given earthquake, elimination of IDP outliers (because they are not properly assigned or due to factors as local amplification, accumulation of damage, etc.) and epicentral parameter recalculation using Boxer algorithm. Then, the reviewed epicentral parameters and the characteristics of the possible seismic sources for the event (obtained from DISS) are used to calculate synthetic macroseismic fields with two different GMICE commonly used in Italy. Finally, fitting of the synthetic macroseismic fields with the real one, based on statistical parameters gives the best fitting seismic source for the investigated event. Certainly, this methodology is not going to solve/clarify all cases; but it may be useful in many of them.
Databases, models and examples used in this paper apply to Italy; but the methodology is applicable elsewhere if similar information (IDPs, GMICEs, earthquake sources/active faults) is available.

About the article itself, as it has been submitted for publication, in an overview, and to my understanding, it is properly written. It is quite long. As four cases are analyzed in a very similar way, it may look repetitive, but I do not see another way to show them properly (they may be presented as supplementary material; but the authors try to show different cases -data quality, fault type, etc.- and it is good to show all of them at the same level). Presentation and discussion of the different topics covered are well organized. The examples have been properly selected and are presented with enough detail level. Figures are appropriate and clear. Finally, the bibliography covers well the topics/issues presented and is quite comprehensive.
The presented results are relevant for the improvement of local/regional identification of true earthquake sources when different candidates are available. Also, even not said explicitly, the methodology may be useful to assess more confident epicentral parameters when available macroseismic data show inconsistencies. Moreover, the presented methodologies can be used in many other places worldwide and the submitted paper can be used as guide for similar studies elsewhere. Thus, I think the submitted paper fits properly on the scope of NHESS.
I’ll not go into many specific details on the submitted written text. It is good for me. But I’ll point some questions and a few items I think may be improved and/or clarified.
-----------------
Title: I’m in doubt… Maybe the title should be “A methodology for…”. Then, in the article body, on presenting the methodology, there is a workflow to be followed. Maybe the editor has a better view about what to use.
Lines 38/39.- Citations (Gasperini and Ferrari, 1995, 2000) are not in the reference list.
Lines 75 and 86.- At line 75 you mention the IPE of Sibol (1987). It is used in Boxer. In line 86 you are referring the IPE of Gomez-Caper at al. (2024). I assume you are using the last one to generate the synthetic IDP; but not in Boxer. Am I right?? Using one IPE for earthquake parameters and another for synthetics does not look very nice (or coherent). I agree it is the easiest way. Other way, you should recompile Boxer.
Line 137.- Citation (Tinti et al, 2016) is not in the reference list.
Line 174.- I think citation (Pondrelli, 2002) is wrong.
Line 176.- Maybe on citing Rossi et al, (2019) it should be indicated these data will be called ROSAL019 here. Otherwise, ROSAL019 is found for the first time in figure 3 caption.
Lines 221/223.- It will be good to give a reference for the problem of saturation exhibited by OLI22.
Lines 230/231.- Are you fixing thresholds for BE and RMSE arbitrarily or have you some previous experience on this topic.
Line 281.- Citation (Westaway et al, 1989) is not found in the reference list.
Lines 310/314.- Thus, your choice is META_04 because META_007 does not feet properly with the geological setting, isn’t it??
Lines 328 and 344.- See note about Pondrelli in the reference list.
Lines 683/685.- For coherence with the body text (line 327), this reference should start as OGS-RSFVG, Istituto…
Line 688.- Again, for coherence with the body text (line 140), this reference should start as ISC, International…
Lines 745/749.- It should be clarified which article is “Pondrelli et al, 2006a and 2006b”. Check also in the body text.
Lines 798/802.- Please, check alphabetical order.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Veronica Gironelli, 21 Jun 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2323/egusphere-2026-2323-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

ED: Submit a revised manuscript (24 Jun 2026) by Seda Yolsal-Çevikbilen

Hide

AR by Veronica Gironelli on behalf of the Authors (30 Jun 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Jul 2026) by Seda Yolsal-Çevikbilen

RR by Josep Batlló (28 Jul 2026)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (10 Aug 2026)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (10 Aug 2026) by Seda Yolsal-Çevikbilen

AR by Veronica Gironelli on behalf of the Authors (01 Sep 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

24 Sep 2026

A methodological workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data

Veronica Gironelli, Lucia Luzi, Andrea Antonucci, and Andrea Rovida

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4569–4588, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-26-4569-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-26-4569-2026, 2026

Short summary

Veronica Gironelli, Lucia Luzi, Andrea Antonucci, and Andrea Rovida

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2323-supplement

Veronica Gironelli, Lucia Luzi, Andrea Antonucci, and Andrea Rovida

Viewed

Total article views: 499 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
320	142	37	499	57	33	32

HTML: 320
PDF: 142
XML: 37
Total: 499
Supplement: 57
BibTeX: 33
EndNote: 32

Views and downloads (calculated since 11 May 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2026	158	59	14	231
Jun 2026	21	13	2	36
Jul 2026	21	17	4	42
Aug 2026	16	8	3	27
Sep 2026	70	22	10	102
Oct 2026	34	23	4	61

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 11 May 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2026	158	59	14	231
Jun 2026	21	13	2	36
Jul 2026	21	17	4	42
Aug 2026	16	8	3	27
Sep 2026	70	22	10	102
Oct 2026	34	23	4	61

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 476 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 476 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 26 Oct 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (2407 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We present an integrated workflow to identify earthquake seismogenic sources from macroseismic data. This approach includes macroseismic field pre-processing and revision of earthquake parameters. The application to both instrumental and historical earthquakes is illustrated through selected case studies. This approach provides a useful tool for reconstructing seismogenic sources and generating realistic shaking scenarios for past events, which have implications for seismic hazard assessment.

A workflow for the identification of earthquake sources from macroseismic data

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Supplement

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0