Strong ground motion characteristics of 2016 Central Italy earthquakes and implications for ground motion modeling

The 2016 Central Italy earthquake sequence produced three mainshocks: (1) M6.1 24 August, (2) M5.9 26 October, and (3) M6.5 30 October. Each mainshock was followed by many aftershocks, some of which with M > 5.0. All earthquake events occurred on southeast-northwest trending normal faults. As part of reconnaissance activities of these events performed by the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association (GEER), ground motion data was processed and analyzed. After processing all data using procedures developed during the latest Next Generation Attenuation (NGA-West2) project, we analyze strong motion characteristics of all three mainshocks, two selected large aftershocks (M5.3 24 August and M4.8 26 August) and a foreshock (M5.4 26 October). Our analysis shows that stations near the hanging wall, exhibit fling-step in some cases but no obvious rupture directivity effects. We compare ground motion intensity measures (including peak ground acceleration and velocity, PGA and PGV, respectively) to Italy-specific and global ground motion models. Overall, the data exhibit fast attenuation at large distance (>100 km), which is captured by Italy-adjusted global models, but not by Italy-specific models. We also found that global models tend to over-predict ground motions at short periods. Both features were also observed from the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake data and may represent regional features. We estimate the spatial distribution of PGA for the three mainshocks by means of a Kriging analysis performed on within-event residuals using a global semi-variogram model. We found that the ground motion is most intense south-west of the Mt.Vettore - Mt.Bove normal fault. Given the importance of Italian normal fault earthquakes in worldwide ground motion databases, this data set is of global significance for studies of normal fault ground motions

Damage to Roadway Infrastructure from 2016 Central Italy Earthquake Sequence

The region of the central Apennines affected by the 2016 earthquake sequence has numerous towns, villages, and isolated dwellings connected by local secondary roads and a few state highways. The roadway network includes several bridges that are important to the economy of the region and play an important role in the post-earthquake resilience of local communities. Within this network, 12 bridges and a rockfall protection tunnel were inspected in coordination with local officials, with relatively cursory reconnaissance of most of the remainder of the network. All inspected reinforced concrete and steel- concrete composite bridges performed adequately. Two historic masonry bridges near Amatrice and Tufo suffered significant damage after the 24 August 2016 main shock, and collapsed after the 30 October 2016 event. Recovery strategies related to the bridge collapse near Amatrice, where two temporary bridges were built within 10 days from the first main shock in August, are discussed. An inspected rockfall protection tunnel experienced earthquake pounding effects

Surface Faulting Caused by the 2016 Central Italy Seismic Sequence: Field Mapping and LiDAR/UAV Imaging

The three mainshock events (M6.1 24 August, M5.9 26 October, and M6.5 30 October 2016) in the Central Italy earthquake sequence produced surface ruptures on known segments of the Mt. Vettore-Mt. Bove normal fault system. As a result, teams from Italian national research institutions and universities, working collaboratively with the U.S. Geothechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association (GEER), were mobilized to collect perishable data. Our reconnaissance approach included field mapping and advanced imaging technique, both directed towards documenting the location and extent of surface rupture on the main fault exposure and secondary features. Mapping activity occurred after each mainshock (with different levels of detail at different times), which provides data on the progression of locations and amounts of slip between events. Along the full length of the Mt. Vettore-Mt. Bove fault system, vertical offsets ranged from 0-35 cm and 70-200 cm for the 24 August and 30 October events, respectively. Comparisons between observed surface rupture displacements and available empirical models show that the three events fit within expected ranges.Published1585-16104T. Sismicità dell'ItaliaJCR Journa

Quality control for next-generation liquefaction case histories

The Next-Generation Liquefaction (NGL) database is an open-source, global database of liquefaction and non-ground failure case-histories. The database is part of a multi-year research effort with the main goal of developing improved procedures to evaluate liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and consequences. In NGL, a case-history is defined as the intersection of three components: (1) a site, (2) an earthquake event, and (3) post-earthquake observations. The NGL database hosts case-histories used to develop existing liquefaction models, as well as new data derived from recent earthquakes such as the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake, and the 2012 Emilia earthquake. The database also hosts lateral spread case-histories, and a substantial number of liquefaction sites characterized by the presence of co-located recording stations. All of the data present in the NGL database are reviewed by the NGL Database Working Group. The NGL formal vetting process is described for an example case-history

Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure from July 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence produced a 4 July M 6.5 foreshock and a 5 July M 7.1 mainshock, along with 23 events with magnitudes greater than 4.5 in the 24 hr period following the mainshock. The epicenters of the two principal events were located in the Indian Wells Valley, northwest of Searles Valley near the towns of Ridgecrest, Trona, and Argus. We describe observed liquefaction manifestations including sand boils, fissures, and lateral spreading features, as well as proximate non‐ground failure zones that resulted from the sequence. Expanding upon results initially presented in a report of the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association, we synthesize results of field mapping, aerial imagery, and inferences of ground deformations from Synthetic Aperture Radar‐based damage proxy maps (DPMs). We document incidents of liquefaction, settlement, and lateral spreading in the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake US military base and compare locations of these observations to pre‐ and postevent mapping of liquefaction hazards. We describe liquefaction and ground‐failure features in Trona and Argus, which produced lateral deformations and impacts on several single‐story masonry and wood frame buildings. Detailed maps showing zones with and without ground failure are provided for these towns, along with mapped ground deformations along transects. Finally, we describe incidents of massive liquefaction with related ground failures and proximate areas of similar geologic origin without ground failure in the Searles Lakebed. Observations in this region are consistent with surface change predicted by the DPM. In the same region, geospatial liquefaction hazard maps are effective at identifying broad percentages of land with liquefaction‐related damage. We anticipate that data presented in this article will be useful for future liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and consequence studies being undertaken as part of the Next Generation Liquefaction project

Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure from July 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence produced a 4 July M 6.5 foreshock and a 5 July M 7.1 mainshock, along with 23 events with magnitudes greater than 4.5 in the 24 hr period following the mainshock. The epicenters of the two principal events were located in the Indian Wells Valley, northwest of Searles Valley near the towns of Ridgecrest, Trona, and Argus. We describe observed liquefaction manifestations including sand boils, fissures, and lateral spreading features, as well as proximate non‐ground failure zones that resulted from the sequence. Expanding upon results initially presented in a report of the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association, we synthesize results of field mapping, aerial imagery, and inferences of ground deformations from Synthetic Aperture Radar‐based damage proxy maps (DPMs). We document incidents of liquefaction, settlement, and lateral spreading in the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake US military base and compare locations of these observations to pre‐ and postevent mapping of liquefaction hazards. We describe liquefaction and ground‐failure features in Trona and Argus, which produced lateral deformations and impacts on several single‐story masonry and wood frame buildings. Detailed maps showing zones with and without ground failure are provided for these towns, along with mapped ground deformations along transects. Finally, we describe incidents of massive liquefaction with related ground failures and proximate areas of similar geologic origin without ground failure in the Searles Lakebed. Observations in this region are consistent with surface change predicted by the DPM. In the same region, geospatial liquefaction hazard maps are effective at identifying broad percentages of land with liquefaction‐related damage. We anticipate that data presented in this article will be useful for future liquefaction susceptibility, triggering, and consequence studies being undertaken as part of the Next Generation Liquefaction project

Engineering reconnaissance following the August 24, 2016 M6.0 Central Italy earthquake

An earthquake with a moment magnitude reported as 6.0 from INGV (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia); occurred at 03:36 AM (local time) on 24 August 2016 in the central part of Italy. The epicenter was located at the borders of the Lazio, Abruzzi, Marche and Umbria regions, about 2.5 km north-east of the village of Accumoli and about 100 km from Rome. The hypocentral depth was about 8 km (INGV). We summarize preliminary findings of the Italy-US GEER (Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance) team, on damage distribution, causative faults, earthquake-induced landslides and rockfalls, building and bridge performance, and ground motion characterization. Our reconnaissance team used multidisciplinary approaches, combining expertise in geology, seismology, geomatics, geotechnical engineering, and structural engineering. 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. We anticipate that results from this study, will be useful for future post-earthquake reconnaissance efforts, and improved emergency respons

Measuring students’ information skills through concept mapping

This paper seeks to develop a methodology that will discover, specify and measure students’ abilities and skills in creating concept maps. Because competencies are the key factor in higher education, the paper analyses the role of concept maps as a tool to diagnose and improve information analysis, synthesis, organisation and representation skills and competencies. We propose a methodology that enables these skills to be evaluated by observing, analysing and measuring the stages involved in creating a concept map: identification of the main and secondary subjects; subject codification by concepts; grading of concepts; and representation of the concepts and their relationships with labels. A case study using action-research methodology tests the usefulness of the methodology on a group of university students of Library and Information Science. The method proposed provides information on the strengths and weaknesses of the students’ skills analysed, thus enabling their training to be improved by means of specific actions

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