The 2016 Central Italy earthquake sequence caused numerous landslides over a large area in the Central Apennines. As a result, the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association (GEER) organized post-earthquake reconnaissance missions to collect perishable data. Given the challenging conditions following the earthquakes, the GEER team implemented a phased reconnaissance approach. This paper illustrates this approach and how it was used to document the largest and most impactful seismically induced landslides. This phased approach relied upon satellite-based interferometric damage proxy maps, preliminary published reports of observed landslides, digital imaging from small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), traditional manual observations, and terrestrial laser scanning. Data collected from the reconnoitered sites were used to develop orthophotos and meshed three-dimensional digital surface models. These products can provide valuable information such as accurate measurements of landslide ground movements in complex topographic geometries or boulder runout distances from rock falls. The paper describes three significant landslide case histories developed and documented with the phased approach: Nera Valley, Village of Pescara del Tronto, and near the villages of Crognaleto and Cervaro.

The Central Italy earthquake sequence initiated on 24 August 2016 with a moment magnitude M6.1 event, followed by two earthquakes (M5.9 and M6.5) on 26 and 30 October, caused significant damage and loss of life in the town of Amatrice and other nearby villages and hamlets. The significance of this sequence led to a major international reconnaissance effort to thoroughly examine the effects of this disaster. Specifically, this paper presents evidences of strong local site effects (i.e., amplification of seismic waves because of stratigraphic and topographic effects that leads to damage concentration in certain areas). It also examines the damage patterns observed along the entire sequence of events in association with the spatial distribution of ground motion intensity with emphasis on the clearly distinct performance of reinforced concrete and masonry structures under multiple excitations. The paper concludes with a critical assessment of past retrofit measures efficiency and a series of lessons learned as per the behavior of structures to a sequence of strong earthquake events.

The Central Italy earthquake sequence produced three main shocks: M6.1 24 August, M5.9 26 October, and M6.5 30 October 2016. Additional M5–5.5 events struck this territory on 18 January 2017 in the Campotosto area. Fault plane solutions for the main shocks exhibit normal faulting (characteristic of crustal extension occurring in the inner central Apennines). Significant evidence, including hypocenter locations, strike and dip angles of the moment tensors, inverted finite fault models (using GPS, interferometric aperture radar, and ground motion data), and surface rupture patterns, all point to the earthquakes having been generated on the Mt. Vettore–Mt. Bove fault system (all three main shocks) and on the Amatrice fault, in the northern sector of the Laga Mountains (portion of 24 August event). The earthquake sequence provides examples of both synthetic and antithetic ruptures on a single fault system (30 October event) and rupture between two faults (24 August event). We describe active faults in the region and their segmentation and present understanding of the potential for linkages between segments (or faults) in the generation of large earthquakes.

The central Italy earthquake sequence has, to date, generated three mainshocks:M6.1 24 August, M5.9 26 October, and M6.5 30 October 2016. These events, along with aftershocks, were well recorded by Italian networks, and are among the normal fault earthquakes with the highest number of recordings globally. We process records for six events using NGA/PEER procedures. Many recording sites lacked VS30 assignments, which we provide using measured shear wave velocity profiles where available and a local geology proxy otherwise. Stations at close distance, including near the hanging wall, exhibit fling step in some cases but no obvious rupture directivity. The data exhibit fast anelastic attenuation at large distances (>100 km), as predicted by recent Italy-adjusted global models, but not by Italyspecific models. We partition residuals from Italy-adjusted global models, finding negative event terms at short periods (weaker than average shaking). We apply Kriging of within-event peak acceleration and velocity residuals using a global semi-variogram model to estimate the spatial distribution of peak accelerations, which are generally most intense south-west of Mt. Vettore.

We appraised factors and processes related to human activities and high water, subsidence, and seismicity. Farming and drainage of peat soils caused subsidence, which contributed to levee internal failures. Subsidence rates decreased with time, but still contributed to levee instability. Modeling changes in seepage and static slope instability suggests an increased probability of failure with decreasing peat thickness. Additional data is needed to assess the spatial and temporal effects of subsidence from peat thinning and deformation. Large-scale, state investment in levee upgrades (> $700 million since the mid-1970s) has increased conformance with applicable standards; however, accounts conflict about corresponding reductions in the number of failures.Modeling and history suggest that projected increases in high-flow frequency associated with climate change will increase the rate of levee failures. Quantifying this increased threat requires further research. A reappraisal of seismic threats resulted in updated ground motion estimates for multiple faults and earthquake-occurrence frequencies. Estimated ground motions are large enough to induce failure. The immediate seismic threat, liquefaction, is the sudden loss of strength from an increase in the pressure of the pore fluid and the corresponding loss of inter-particle contact forces. However, levees damaged during an earthquake that do not immediately fail may eventually breach. Key sources of uncertainty include occurrence frequencies and magnitudes, localized ground motions, and data for liquefaction potential.Estimates of the consequences of future levee failure range up to multiple billions of dollars. Analysis of future risks will benefit from improved description of levee upgrades and strength as well as consideration of subsidence, the effects of climate change, and earthquake threats. Levee habitat ecosystem benefits in this highly altered system are few. Better recognition and coordination is needed among the creation of high-value habitat, levee needs, and costs and benefits of levee improvements and breaches.