Contemporary crustal extension in the Umbria–Marche Apennines from regional CGPS networks and comparison between geodetic and seismic deformation

D’Agostino, N.; Mantenuto, S.; D’Anastasio, E.; Avallone, A.; Barchi, Massimiliano R.; Collettini, Cristiano; Radicioni, Fabio; Stoppini, Aurelio; Fastellini, Guido

doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.09.033

Cited by 76 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The three main events show normal focal mechanisms striking NNW-SSE, in agreement with the extensional tectonic regime of the central Apennines (D'Agostino et al, 2009). The hypocenter has been located at 13.238°E, 42.704°N, at a depth of 8.0 km (http://cnt.rm.ingv.it/event/7073641); it is the first shock of a seismic sequence characterized by three damaging earthquakes occurred in central Italy between August and October.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Rupture Kinematics and Structural‐Rheological Control of the 2016 M_w6.1 Amatrice (Central Italy) Earthquake From Joint Inversion of Seismic and Geodetic Data

Cirella

Pezzo

Piatanesi

2018

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the rupture process of the 2016, Mw6.1 Amatrice earthquake, the first shock of a seismic sequence characterized by three damaging earthquakes occurred in central Italy between August and October. We jointly invert strong motion, High‐Rate GPS data, GPS, and DInSAR displacements and we adopt ad hoc velocity profiles of the crust below each station. The retrieved source model reveals a high degree of complexity, characterized by a prominent bilateral rupture with low slip at the hypocenter, two well‐separated slip patches and a rupture front accelerating when breaking the largest patch. The rupture of the main asperity features a slip‐velocity pulse that is impeded ahead of its current direction and splits into two pulses. In this fault section we find clues of structural and rheological control of the rupture propagation due to the fault system segmentation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Rupture Kinematics and Structural‐Rheological Control of the 2016 M_w6.1 Amatrice (Central Italy) Earthquake From Joint Inversion of Seismic and Geodetic Data

Cirella

Pezzo

Piatanesi

2018

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This subjective element was emphasized by Caporali et al [2003]. D'Agostino et al [2009] showed that different assumptions for the seismic depth and/or the tension factor used in the spline interpolation of the velocities (the tension factor plays a role similar to that of our scaling distance d 0 in the collocation algorithm) could lead to contradictory results for the energy balance of a seismic province. Our approach defines the seismic volume as an integral across the magnitude spectrum and recognizes that each magnitude involves a different deforming volume.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“… Slejko et al [2010] obtained 30 year earthquake probabilities by combining geodetic data with the seismogenic areas of known depth, strike, dip, rake, geologic slip rate and expected maximum magnitude derived from the Database of Italian Seismogenic Sources (DISS) [ Basili et al , 2008]. D'Agostino et al [2009] concentrated on a dense GPS network in the extensional and seismically active area in central Italy and concluded that there is a deficit in seismic activity relative to the geodetically measured deformation rate.…”

Section: Geodesy and Seismic Hazard In Italymentioning

confidence: 99%

Static stress drop as determined from geodetic strain rates and statistical seismicity

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Two critical items in the energetic budget of a seismic province are the strain rate, which is measured geodetically on the Earth's surface, and the yearly number of earthquakes exceeding a given magnitude. Our study is based on one of the most complete and recent seismic catalogs of Italian earthquakes and on the strain rate map implied by a multiyear velocity solution for permanent GPS stations. For each of 36 homogeneous seismic zones we use the appropriate Gutenberg-Richter relation, which is based on the seismicity catalog, to estimate a seismic strain rate, which is the strain rate associated with the mechanical work due to a coseismic displacement. We show that for each seismic zone, the volume storing most of the elastic energy associated with the long-term deformation, and hence the seismic strain rate, is inversely proportional to the static stress drop. The GPS-derived strain rate for each seismic zone limits the corresponding seismic strain rate, and an upper bound for the average stress drop is estimated. We show that the implied regional static stress drop varies from 0.1 to 5.7 MPa for catalog earthquakes in the moment magnitude range [4.5-7.3]. The stress drop results are independent of the regional a and b parameters and heat flow but are very sensitive to the assumed maximum magnitude of a seismic province. The data do not rule out the hypothesis that the stress drop positively correlates with the time elapsed after the largest earthquake recorded in each seismic zone.Citation: Caporali, A., S. Barba, M. M. C. Carafa, R. Devoti, G. Pietrantonio, and F. Riguzzi (2011), Static stress drop as determined from geodetic strain rates and statistical seismicity,

show abstract

“…Chiaraluce et al (2007) interpreted these features as the presence within the fault system of fault zones possessing different rheology and/or frictional properties. It is also worth noting that the microseismicity nucleating on the ATF is not able to explain the amount of deformation associated with the short-and long-term slip rate inferred by geological (Collettini and Holdsworth, 2004) and geodetic studies and data (D'Agostino et al, 2009). These observations together with the lack of large-magnitude (M>7) historical earthquakes that ruptured the whole ATF in the past 1000 years (Rovida et al, 2011;Chiaraluce et al, 2014) suggest the occurrence of aseismic deformation or creeping as proposed by Hreinsdottir and Bennett (2009) by interpreting regional GPS data.…”

Section: The Alto Tiberina Fault Systemmentioning

confidence: 97%

On the mechanical behaviour of a low-angle normal fault: the Alto Tiberina fault (Northern Apennines, Italy) system case study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Geological and seismological observations have been used to parameterize 2-D numerical elastic models to simulate the interseismic deformation of a complex extensional fault system located in the Northern Apennines (Italy). The geological system is dominated by the presence of the Alto Tiberina fault (ATF), a large (60 km along strike) lowangle normal fault dipping 20 • in the brittle crust (0-15 km). The ATF is currently characterized by a high and constant rate of microseismic activity, and no moderate-to-large magnitude earthquakes have been associated with this fault in the past 1000 years. Modelling results have been compared with GPS data in order to understand the mechanical behaviour of this fault and a suite of minor syn-and antithetic normal fault segments located in the main fault hanging wall.The results of the simulations demonstrate the active role played by the Alto Tiberina fault in accommodating the ongoing tectonic extension in this sector of the chain. The GPS velocity profile constructed through the fault system cannot be explained without including the ATF's contribution to deformation, indicating that this fault, although misoriented, has to be considered tectonically active and with a creeping behaviour below 5 km depth.The low-angle normal fault also shows a high degree of tectonic coupling with its main antithetic fault (the Gubbio fault), suggesting that creeping along the ATF may control the observed strain localization and the pattern of microseismic activity.

show abstract

Contemporary crustal extension in the Umbria–Marche Apennines from regional CGPS networks and comparison between geodetic and seismic deformation

Cited by 76 publications

References 35 publications

Rupture Kinematics and Structural‐Rheological Control of the 2016 M_w6.1 Amatrice (Central Italy) Earthquake From Joint Inversion of Seismic and Geodetic Data

Rupture Kinematics and Structural‐Rheological Control of the 2016 M_w6.1 Amatrice (Central Italy) Earthquake From Joint Inversion of Seismic and Geodetic Data

Static stress drop as determined from geodetic strain rates and statistical seismicity

On the mechanical behaviour of a low-angle normal fault: the Alto Tiberina fault (Northern Apennines, Italy) system case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Contemporary crustal extension in the Umbria–Marche Apennines from regional CGPS networks and comparison between geodetic and seismic deformation

Cited by 76 publications

References 35 publications

Rupture Kinematics and Structural‐Rheological Control of the 2016 Mw6.1 Amatrice (Central Italy) Earthquake From Joint Inversion of Seismic and Geodetic Data

Rupture Kinematics and Structural‐Rheological Control of the 2016 Mw6.1 Amatrice (Central Italy) Earthquake From Joint Inversion of Seismic and Geodetic Data

Static stress drop as determined from geodetic strain rates and statistical seismicity

On the mechanical behaviour of a low-angle normal fault: the Alto Tiberina fault (Northern Apennines, Italy) system case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Rupture Kinematics and Structural‐Rheological Control of the 2016 M_w6.1 Amatrice (Central Italy) Earthquake From Joint Inversion of Seismic and Geodetic Data

Rupture Kinematics and Structural‐Rheological Control of the 2016 M_w6.1 Amatrice (Central Italy) Earthquake From Joint Inversion of Seismic and Geodetic Data