The songs of the President Vargas's government and the Social Memory Registry on presidential elections

It studies the musical compositions during the presidential elections of President Vargas's government between 1930 and 1954. It lists four songs composed during the period proposed with their respectives authors and interpreters. It uses the songs as a source of information about the political memory of the time. It analyzes in an empirical way, the lyrics of the songs and the facts to which they refer in relation to the story. It draws a parallel between the facts, the compositions and the social memory. It concludes that music is an important source of information for the formation of social memory, through its lyrics.Estuda as músicas compostas durante as eleições presidenciais da Era Vargas, no período entre 1930 e 1954. Lista quatro músicas compostas no período proposto, com seus respectivos autores e interpretes. Utiliza as músicas como fonte de informação sobre a memória política da época. Analisa de forma empírica, as letras das canções e os fatos aos quais que se referem, com relação à história. Traça um paralelo entre os fatos, as composições e a memória social. Conclui que a música é uma importante fonte de informação para a formação da memória social, através de suas letras

Engineering Reconnaissance Following the October 2016 Central Italy Earthquakes - Version 2

Between August and November 2016, three major earthquake events occurred in Central Italy. The first event, with M6.1, took place on 24 August 2016, the second (M5.9) on 26 October, and the third (M6.5) on 30 October 2016. Each event was followed by numerous aftershocks. As shown in Figure 1.1, this earthquake sequence occurred in a gap between two earlier damaging events, the 1997 M6.1 Umbria-Marche earthquake to the north-west and the 2009 M6.1 L’Aquila earthquake to the south-east. This gap had been previously recognized as a zone of elevated risk (GdL INGV sul terremoto di Amatrice, 2016). These events occurred along the spine of the Apennine Mountain range on normal faults and had rake angles ranging from -80 to -100 deg, which corresponds to normal faulting. Each of these events produced substantial damage to local towns and villages. The 24 August event caused massive damages to the following villages: Arquata del Tronto, Accumoli, Amatrice, and Pescara del Tronto. In total, there were 299 fatalities (www.ilgiornale.it), generally from collapses of unreinforced masonry dwellings. The October events caused significant new damage in the villages of Visso, Ussita, and Norcia, although they did not produce fatalities, since the area had largely been evacuated. The NSF-funded Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) association, with co-funding from the B. John Garrick Institute for the Risk Sciences at UCLA and the NSF I/UCRC Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) at BYU, mobilized a US-based team to the area in two main phases: (1) following the 24 August event, from early September to early October 2016, and (2) following the October events, between the end of November and the beginning of December 2016. The US team worked in close collaboration with Italian researchers organized under the auspices of the Italian Geotechnical Society, the Italian Center for Seismic Microzonation and its Applications, the Consortium ReLUIS, Centre of Competence of Department of Civil Protection and the DIsaster RECovery Team of Politecnico di Torino. The objective of the Italy-US GEER team was to collect and document perishable data that is essential to advance knowledge of earthquake effects, which ultimately leads to improved procedures for characterization and mitigation of seismic risk. The Italy-US GEER team was multi-disciplinary, with expertise in geology, seismology, geomatics, geotechnical engineering, and structural engineering. The composition of the team was largely the same for the two mobilizations, particularly on the Italian side. Our approach was to combine traditional reconnaissance activities of on-ground recording and mapping of field conditions, with advanced imaging and damage detection routines enabled by state-of-the-art geomatics technology. GEER coordinated its reconnaissance activities with those of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), although the EERI mobilization to the October events was delayed and remains pending as of this writing (April 2017). For the August event reconnaissance, EERI focused on emergency response and recovery, in combination with documenting the effectiveness of public policies related to seismic retrofit. As such, GEER had responsibility for documenting structural damage patterns in addition to geotechnical effects. This report is focused on the reconnaissance activities performed following the October 2016 events. More information about the GEER reconnaissance activities and main findings following the 24 August 2016 event, can be found in GEER (2016). The objective of this document is to provide a summary of our findings, with an emphasis of documentation of data. In general, we do not seek to interpret data, but rather to present it as thoroughly as practical. Moreover, we minimize the presentation of background information already given in GEER (2016), so that the focus is on the effects of the October events. As such, this report and GEER (2016) are inseparable companion documents. Similar to reconnaissance activities following the 24 August 2016 event, the GEER team investigated earthquake effects on slopes, villages, and major infrastructure. Figure 1.2 shows the most strongly affected region and locations described subsequently pertaining to: 1. Surface fault rupture; 2. Recorded ground motions; 3. Landslides and rockfalls; 4. Mud volcanoes; 5. Investigated bridge structures; 6. Villages and hamlets for which mapping of building performance was performed

Reconnaissance of 2016 Central Italy Earthquake Sequence

The Central Italy earthquake sequence nominally began on 24 August 2016 with a M6.1 event on a normal fault that produced devastating effects in the town of Amatrice and several nearby villages and hamlets. A major international response was undertaken to record the effects of this disaster, including surface faulting, ground motions, landslides, and damage patterns to structures. This work targeted the development of high-value case histories useful to future research. Subsequent events in October 2016 exacerbated the damage in previously affected areas and caused damage to new areas in the north, particularly the relatively large town of Norcia. Additional reconnaissance after a M6.5 event on 30 October 2016 documented and mapped several large landslide features and increased damage states for structures in villages and hamlets throughout the region. This paper provides an overview of the reconnaissance activities undertaken to document and map these and other effects, and highlights valuable lessons learned regarding faulting and ground motions, engineering effects, and emergency response to this disaster

Insights into the 1976–2000 eruption episode of Whakaari/White Island, New Zealand: an eruption fuelled by repeated mafic recharge

International audienc

Possible Source Directions for the Mesoproterozoic Eucarro Rhyolite, Gawler Ranges: Evidence from Phenocryst Lineations

1 page(s

Landslides caused by the M_w7.8 Kaikōura earthquake and the immediate response

Tens of thousands of landslides were generated over 10, 000 km2 of North Canterbury and Marlborough as a consequence of the 14 November 2016, MW7.8 Kaikōura Earthquake. The most intense landslide damage was concentrated in 3500 km2 around the areas of fault rupture. Given the sparsely populated area affected by landslides, only a few homes were impacted and there were no recorded deaths due to landslides. Landslides caused major disruption with all road and rail links with Kaikōura being severed. The landslides affecting State Highway 1 (the main road link in the South Island of New Zealand) and the South Island main trunk railway extended from Ward in Marlborough all the way to the south of Oaro in North Canterbury. The majority of landslides occurred in two geological and geotechnically distinct materials reflective of the dominant rock types in the affected area. In the Neogene sedimentary rocks (sandstones, limestones and siltstones) of the Hurunui District, North Canterbury and around Cape Campbell in Marlborough, first-time and reactivated rock-slides and rock-block slides were the dominant landslide type. These rocks also tend to have rock material strength values in the range of 5-20 MPa. In the Torlesse 'basement' rocks (greywacke sandstones and argillite) of the Kaikōura Ranges, first-time rock and debris avalanches were the dominant landslide type. These rocks tend to have material strength values in the range of 20-50 MPa. A feature of this earthquake is the large number (more than 200) of valley blocking landslides it generated. This was partly due to the steep and confined slopes in the area and the widely distributed strong ground shaking. The largest landslide dam has an approximate volume of 12(±2) M m3 and the debris from this travelled about 2.7 km2 downslope where it formed a dam blocking the Hapuku River. The long-term stability of cracked slopes and landslide dams from future strong earthquakes and large rainstorms are an ongoing concern to central and local government agencies responsible for rebuilding homes and infrastructure. A particular concern is the potential for debris floods to affect downstream assets and infrastructure should some of the landslide dams breach catastrophically. At least twenty-one faults ruptured to the ground surface or sea floor, with these surface ruptures extending from the Emu Plain in North Canterbury to offshore of Cape Campbell in Marlborough. The mapped landslide distribution reflects the complexity of the earthquake rupture. Landslides are distributed across a broad area of intense ground shaking reflective of the elongate area affected by fault rupture, and are not clustered around the earthquake epicentre. The largest landslides triggered by the earthquake are located either on or adjacent to faults that ruptured to the ground surface. Surface faults may provide a plane of weakness or hydrological discontinuity and adversely oriented surface faults may be indicative of the location of future large landslides. Their location appears to have a strong structural geological control. Initial results from our landslide investigations suggest predictive models relying only on ground-shaking estimates underestimate the number and size of the largest landslides that occurred.</p