Seismic hazard in central Italy and the 2016 Amatrice earthquake
The Amatrice earthquake of August 24th, 2016 (Mw 6.0) struck an area that in the national reference seismic hazard model (MPS04) is characterized by expected horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years higher than 0.25 g. After the occurrence of moderate-...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)
2016-12-01
|
| Series: | Annals of Geophysics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/7248 |
| _version_ | 1818982329649987584 |
|---|---|
| author | Carlo Meletti Francesco Visini Vera D'Amico Andrea Rovida |
| author_facet | Carlo Meletti Francesco Visini Vera D'Amico Andrea Rovida |
| author_sort | Carlo Meletti |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The Amatrice earthquake of August 24th, 2016 (Mw 6.0) struck an area that in the national reference seismic hazard model (MPS04) is characterized by expected horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years higher than 0.25 g. After the occurrence of moderate-to-large magnitude earthquakes with a strong impact on the population, such as the L’Aquila 2009 and Emilia 2012 ones (Mw 6.1 and 5.9, respectively), possible underestimations of the seismic hazard by MPS04 were investigated, in order to analyze and evaluate the possible need for its update. One of the most common misunderstanding is to compare recorded PGA only with PGA with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Moreover, by definition, probabilistic models cannot be validated (or rejected) on the basis of a single event. However, comparisons of forecasted shakings with observed data are useful for understating the consistency of the model. It is then worth highlighting the importance of these comparisons. In fact, MPS04 is the basis for the current Italian building code to provide the effective design procedures and, thus, any modification to the seismic hazard would also affect the building code. In this paper, comparisons between recorded ground motion during the Amatrice earthquake and seismic hazard estimates are performed, showing that the observed accelerations are consistent with the values expected by the MPS04 model. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T17:45:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2d38a81410c84b9a98bb0c69742e8458 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1593-5213 2037-416X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T17:45:29Z |
| publishDate | 2016-12-01 |
| publisher | Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Annals of Geophysics |
| spelling | doaj.art-2d38a81410c84b9a98bb0c69742e84582022-12-21T19:30:58ZengIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)Annals of Geophysics1593-52132037-416X2016-12-0159010.4401/ag-72486176Seismic hazard in central Italy and the 2016 Amatrice earthquakeCarlo MelettiFrancesco VisiniVera D'AmicoAndrea RovidaThe Amatrice earthquake of August 24th, 2016 (Mw 6.0) struck an area that in the national reference seismic hazard model (MPS04) is characterized by expected horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years higher than 0.25 g. After the occurrence of moderate-to-large magnitude earthquakes with a strong impact on the population, such as the L’Aquila 2009 and Emilia 2012 ones (Mw 6.1 and 5.9, respectively), possible underestimations of the seismic hazard by MPS04 were investigated, in order to analyze and evaluate the possible need for its update. One of the most common misunderstanding is to compare recorded PGA only with PGA with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Moreover, by definition, probabilistic models cannot be validated (or rejected) on the basis of a single event. However, comparisons of forecasted shakings with observed data are useful for understating the consistency of the model. It is then worth highlighting the importance of these comparisons. In fact, MPS04 is the basis for the current Italian building code to provide the effective design procedures and, thus, any modification to the seismic hazard would also affect the building code. In this paper, comparisons between recorded ground motion during the Amatrice earthquake and seismic hazard estimates are performed, showing that the observed accelerations are consistent with the values expected by the MPS04 model.http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/7248Seismic hazardItalyAmatrice earthquake |
| spellingShingle | Carlo Meletti Francesco Visini Vera D'Amico Andrea Rovida Seismic hazard in central Italy and the 2016 Amatrice earthquake Annals of Geophysics Seismic hazard Italy Amatrice earthquake |
| title | Seismic hazard in central Italy and the 2016 Amatrice earthquake |
| title_full | Seismic hazard in central Italy and the 2016 Amatrice earthquake |
| title_fullStr | Seismic hazard in central Italy and the 2016 Amatrice earthquake |
| title_full_unstemmed | Seismic hazard in central Italy and the 2016 Amatrice earthquake |
| title_short | Seismic hazard in central Italy and the 2016 Amatrice earthquake |
| title_sort | seismic hazard in central italy and the 2016 amatrice earthquake |
| topic | Seismic hazard Italy Amatrice earthquake |
| url | http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/7248 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT carlomeletti seismichazardincentralitalyandthe2016amatriceearthquake AT francescovisini seismichazardincentralitalyandthe2016amatriceearthquake AT veradamico seismichazardincentralitalyandthe2016amatriceearthquake AT andrearovida seismichazardincentralitalyandthe2016amatriceearthquake |