Temblor:Italy earthquake leaves seismic gaps

Post Reply
Site Admin
Posts: 1681
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 3:57 pm

Temblor:Italy earthquake leaves seismic gaps

Post by salsinawi » Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:57 pm

http://temblor.net/earthquake-insights/ ... 1703-1216/

Italy earthquake leaves seismic gaps that were last filled by three large earthquakes in 1703

Posted on August 24, 2016 by Temblor

Ross Stein and Volkan Sevilgen,

Updated: 9:00 am PDT 26 Aug 2016

Sixty-two hours after the M=6.2 Rieti, Italy, mainshock, we are continuing to take a close look. Here are what strike us as the most important findings and issues.
Why so damaging?

To calibrate the USGS PAGER system that forecasts casualties and economic consequences of earthquakes immediately after they occur, Kishor Jaiswal and David Wald of the USGS analyzed quake deaths from around the world during 1973-2009. Shockingly, they found that if 10,000 people were subjected to violent shaking (‘Modified Mercalli Intensity IX’), in Iran 3,000 would die; in Italy 150, and in California just 3. In this quake, about 10,000 people were exposed to severe shaking (‘Modified Mercalli Intensity IX’), and so the current death toll is, sadly, consistent with their estimate. None of these disparities are caused by differences in shaking; all are due to construction. The entire Abruzzo region was destroyed in 1703, and so many buildings date from the early 1700’s. Buildings more than a century old are typically made of heavy unreinforced stones and cannot resist the side-to-side shear forces exerted by even a modest quake like this one.

What’s to be done? Earthquake Early Warning systems would not have worked for this small quake; the distances from the epicenter to the towns are so short that the shaking would have beaten the electronic warning to people’s cell phones and public sirens. A very dense seismic network would have afforded several seconds of warning to Norcia and Amatrice, enough time to dive under a bed but not to get out of a building. It is difficult and expensive—but nevertheless possible—to retrofit ancient or old buildings, but at the very least, schools and public buildings need to conform to a much higher standard. Homeowners should investigate retrofitting or moving to new homes; one can also insure against earthquakes for financial protection.

No precursory swarm

A political and legal struggle arose after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake over whether the population was adequately warned about a potential earthquake. The broad region—but not L’Aquila itself—experienced a seismic swarm for a month or so before the mainshock. Later, the local prosecutor argued that the politicians and scientists had not adequately warned that a swarm could portend a mainshock. The resulting manslaughter convictions of the scientists were, fortunately and appropriately, overturned, but only years later.
Temblor map of the aftershocks, with the Global Earthquake Activity Rate (GEAR) model of Bird et al (2015).
But at least at the level of M≥2, the 23 August 2016 M=6.2 quake was not preceded by a swarm. In fact, there was only one M=2.2 shock near the future rupture zone during the 30 days before the mainshock struck (see map above). Instead, there is a 200-km-long zone of M≤2 seismicity that extends from L’Aquila to the northwest, which is just evident in the map of M≥2 shocks, and its shock rate has been steady for a decade. The absence of a precursory swarm is not a surprise: As the scientists argued before the prosecutor, swarms seldom occur except at volcanic sites or along creeping faults, and only rarely are they harbingers of future mainshocks. In this quake, the Gods answered the lawyers: Earthquakes cannot be predicted, at least not yet.
Progressive earthquake failure in 1703

But there is another remarkable feature of this part of the Apennines: Three earthquakes struck over a period of 19 days in 1703 in a 36-km southeastward progression (Guidoboni and Valensise, 2015). The epicenters were near Norcia (M~6.7 on 14 Jan 1703), Montereale (M~6.2 on 16 Jan 1703) and L’Aquila (M~6.7 on 2 Feb 1703), rupturing all of the known active faults between Norcia and L’Aquila. About 10,000 people died in this 19 days of terror, although casualty numbers remain highly uncertain.
Could this happen again now? As with precursory swarms, progressive earthquake sequences are uncommon. All one can say is that because this has happened in the past, and because it multiple ruptures and very large aftershocks are historically common here, it could happen again. So, one should not assume or assure anyone that this earthquake sequence is over.
Here is a comparison of the sites of highest intensity shaking in the 1703 M~6.7 and 1997 M=6.1 Umbria-Marche earthquakes (the two panels on the left) with the aftershocks of the 23 August 2016 M=6.2 shock on the right. The high intensity zones of the 1703 and 1997 shocks abut or overlap, but there appears to be a gap of about 20 km (12 mi) between the 1997 and 2016 ruptures. The left two panels are from Galli, Galadini and Calzoni (2005); the right panel is a Temblor map, which uses the EMSC aftershocks.

Mind the Gaps

There appears to be 20-km-long (12 mi) gaps between the 23 August 2016 quake and the 1997 Umbria-Marche quake to the northwest and the 2009 L’Aquila shock to the southeast. These gaps have a history of moderate or large quakes, so they certainly are not aseismic. Galli, Galadini and Calzoni (2005) found evidence of repeated surface ruptures in the past 20,000 years along the Norcia fault zone that extends through this region. Therefore, another M~6 quake is still possible—but by no means imminent.

The 23 August 2016 M=6.2 earthquake struck between the sites of the 1997 M=6.1 Umbria-Marche shock to the northwest, and the 2009 M=6.3 L’Aquila shock to the southeast. This leaves potential gaps, at least since 1859, between the recent quakes, where another M~6 shock could conceivably strike. (Annotated from an INGV map).
The extent of the rupture is best assessed not by the aftershocks, but by the ground deformation. That’s because aftershocks can strike well off the rupture in areas where the stress has been increased by the mainshock. Here, below, is the first accessible radar image of the ground deformation, called an ‘interferogram;’ it differences radar images made about a year before and the day after the mainshock. One can see that the deformation is about 20 km long. The yellow area to the west is uplifted, while the central fringes or contours indicate subsidence. So, there are indeed gaps between this shock and the sites of the 1997 and 2009 shock.
Here is a radar image of the ground deformation caused by the earthquake. It is from the Japanese space agency, JAXA.

Was the mainshock triggered by the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake?

The answer is a qualified yes. Serpelloni, Anderlini, and Belardinelli (2012) calculated the Coulomb stress transfer to the region surrounding the 2009 quake. One can see in the map below that the 23 August 2016 mainshock was brought closer to failure, but only by about 0.05-0.10 bar. Generally, stress increases of ≥0.1 bar are associated with aftershocks and an increased probability of future mainshocks. So the effect is small but positive.

The M=6.2 epicenter is located in the earthquake triggering zone of the 6 April 2009 L’Aquila rupture (black rectangle). We modified this figure from Serpelloni, Anderlini and Belardinelli (2012).

How good was the national seismic hazard map?

One can only assess a probabilistic hazard map by looking at hundreds of large quakes, but if we had to judge it by this one alone, it was excellent. The M=6.2 quake struck in the most seismically active part of Italy, and the observed shaking was about at the maximum level forecast by the map. The map is based on the modern and ancient record of earthquakes, on the identification of active faults, and on the crustal strain measured by GPS receivers—just as the maps in the U.S. and Japan are based.
This is the national seismic hazard map of Italy, produced by the INGV (equivalent of the USGS in the United States), annotated with the recent earthquake. The map proved prescient: The M=6.2 quake struck in the zone of highest hazard, which runs down the spine of the Apennine ranges of central and southern Italy. The shaking recorded for the M=6.2 earthquake recorded at Norica peaked at about 0.375 g, consistent with the map, although more records might soon become available with higher (and lower) shaking.
Here, below, is the highest recorded ground acceleration we have seen so far. The strong shaking lasted only for 3-4 seconds and peaked at a relatively modest 0.375 g (we are all accelerated downward at 1.0 g; if we were accelerated upward at 1 g, we would lift off the ground). Well-built wood frame homes should come through this level of shaking unscathed. On the basis of damage, it is possible—but doubtful—that the shaking was much stronger at Amatrice. The mainshock lies between these two towns and so the seismic waves traveled in both directions toward them, and so should be comparable. Sadly, this Norcia record is a strong indictment of the poor building quality. Seismometers don’t lie.
This is the shaking record from Norcia, 14 km (9 mi) form the epicenter, in the north-south direction, which was highest of the three components (N, W, Up). (Source: Praveen K. Malhotra, Strong Motions, Inc., who obtained the data from Italian National Strong Motion Network (RAN), which is managed by the Italian Department of Civil Protection)
Data from INGV (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Volcanologia), EMSC (European Mediterranean Seismological Centre), Italian National Strong Motion Network (RAN), which is managed by the Italian Department of Civil Protection, USGS, and a conversation with Gianluca Valensise, Director of Research at the INGV.
Bird, P., D. D. Jackson, Y. Y. Kagan, C. Kreemer, and R. S. Stein (2015). GEAR1: A Global Earthquake Activity Rate Model Constructed from Geodetic Strain Rates and Smoothed Seismicity, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 105, 2538-2554, doi: 10.1785/0120150058.

Galli, P., F. Galadini, and F. Calzoni (2005), Surface faulting in Norcia (central Italy): A paleoseismological perspective, Tectonophysics, 403 117–130, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2005.04.003
Guidoboni, Emmanuela, and Gianluca Valensise (2015), On the complexity of earthquake sequences:A historical seismology perspective based on the L’Aquila seismicity (Abruzzo, Central Italy), 1315-1915, Earthquakes and Structures, 8, 153-184, doi: 10.12989/eas.2015.8.1.153
Jaiswal, K., and D. Wald (2010), An Empirical Model for Global Earthquake Fatality Estimation, Earthquake Spectra, 26, 1017-1037, DOI: 10.1193/1.3480331.
Serpelloni E., Anderlini L., and Belardinelli, M.E., (2012) Fault geometry, coseismic-slip distribution and Coulomb stress change associated with the 2009 April 6, Mw 6.3, L’Aquila earthquake from inversion of GPS displacements, Geophys. J. Int., 188, 473–489 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05279.x


http://temblor.net/earthquake-insights/ ... ults-1203/

24 Aug 2016 M=6.8 Burma earthquake reveals how oblique plate motion is accommodated by parallel transform and subduction faults

Posted on August 24, 2016 by Temblor

David Jacobson and Ross Stein, Temblor

The M=6.2 Italy earthquake dominated the seismic headlines today, but an even larger quake just a few hours later was largely ignored. While unrelated, both earthquakes are important.
Today’s magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck western Burma, 200 km northwest of the capital city of Naypyitaw. This quake, which took place at 5:04 p.m. local time (3:34 a.m. PDT), occurred at a depth of 85 km and was felt as far away as Bangladesh. From the Temblor map below, we can see that earthquakes of this size are not unusual for the region. Though reports are still coming in, 3 people are already confirmed dead and several ancient temples have seen significant damage.
Temblor map of Burma with today’s earthquake marked. The earthquakes shown are from the EMS Catalog, and the colors come from the Global Earthquake Activity Rate (GEAR) model of Bird et al. (2015). This model is now shown in the Temblor web app (app.temblor.net).

This earthquake, which occurred on a thrust fault, also illuminates the regional tectonics of the area. Burma lies in a zone of competing tectonic forces. The Indian plate is subducting (or shoving itself) obliquely beneath Burma at 23 mm/yr (about an inch a year). This is accommodated by twin parallel faults: The highly active Sagaing Fault is a right-lateral transform fault, not unlike the San Andreas in California, and accommodates 11-18 mm/yr of motion. The remainder, also about 18 mm/yr, occurs as pure subduction between the Burma and Sunda plates. Given the location and depth (85 km), today’s earthquake would require the subducting plate to have an average dip of 18°.
The ISC-GEM seismic catalog (left) and regional tectonic map (right) of the Burma region, with today’s earthquake labeled. The map on the right is from Kerry Sieh (Earth Observatory Singapore), with key historical earthquakes marked.

An 85 km hypocentral depth is fairly deep compared to most large subduction zone earthquakes, which typically occur at depths of less than 45 km. This greater depth means that while shaking lasted for up to 2 minutes, intensities were lower, resulting in less damage.

From the map above on the right, we can see that the region around the epicenter experiences both compressional and shear stresses. In fact, a 1994 M=6.5 earthquake located very near the epicenter of today’s earthquake, had a significant component of strike-slip motion. The 1994 shock was much shallower that today’s, and was likely located within the overriding crustal block. This variety of events illustrates the tectonic complexity of the region, which is not only being squeezed, but twisted, resulting in a diversity of earthquake motion.
Over the past decade, Kerry Sieh and his colleagues at Earth Observatory Singapore have mapped all of the active faults in the region, training Burmese geologists and paleoseismologists along the way. At the same time, Susan Hough and her USGS colleagues have been training Burmese seismologists and introducing seismic instrumentation, funded by the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. We anticipate that both of these researchers will provide more insights in the month ahead, and that the cohort of scientists they have trained will lead their country’s understanding of and preparations for its very high seismic hazards.


USGS, Earth Observatory Singapore, BBC, New York Times

Post Reply