Abstract
Earthquakes cannot be predicted with precision, but algorithms exist for intermediate-term middle-range prediction of main shocks above a pre-assigned threshold, based on seismicity patterns. Few years ago, a first attempt was made in the framework of project SISMA, funded by Italian Space Agency, to jointly use seismological tools, like CN algorithm and scenario earthquakes, and geodetic methods and techniques, like GPS and SAR monitoring, to effectively constrain priority areas where to concentrate prevention and seismic risk mitigation. We present a further development of integration of seismological and geodetic information, clearly showing the contribution of geodesy to the understanding and prediction of earthquakes. As a relevant application, the seismic crisis that started in Central Italy in August 2016 with the Amatrice earthquake and still going on is considered in a retrospective analysis of both GPS and SAR data. Differently from the much more common approach, here, GPS data are not used to estimate the standard 2D velocity and strain field in the area, but to reconstruct the velocity and strain pattern along transects, which are properly oriented according to the a priori information about the known tectonic setting. SAR data related to the Amatrice earthquake coseismic displacements are here used as independent check of the GPS results. Overall, the analysis of the available geodetic data indicates that it is possible to highlight the velocity variation and the related strain accumulation in the area of Amatrice event, within the area alarmed by CN since November 1st, 2012. The considered counter examples, across CN alarmed and not-alarmed areas, do not show any spatial acceleration localized trend, comparable to the one well defined along the Amatrice transect. Therefore, we show that the combined analysis of the results of intermediate-term middle-range earthquake prediction algorithms, like CN, with those from the processing of adequately dense and permanent GNSS network data, possibly complemented by a continuous InSAR tracking, may allow the routine highlight in advance of the strain accumulation. Thus, it is possible to significantly reduce the size of the CN alarmed areas.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CN:
-
California–Nevada algorithm for intermediate-term middle-range earthquake prediction
- DGA:
-
Design ground acceleration
- GNSS:
-
Global navigation satellite system
- GPS:
-
Global positioning system
- InSAR:
-
Interferometric synthetic aperture radar
- M8:
-
Global algorithm for intermediate-term middle-range prediction for the greatest (M ≥ 8) earthquakes worldwide
- MCS:
-
Macroseismic intensity scale Mercalli, Cancani, Sieberg
- NDSHA:
-
Neo deterministic seismic hazard assessment
- PGV:
-
Peak ground velocity
- PGA:
-
Peak ground acceleration
- RAN-DPC:
-
Rete Accelerometrica Nazionale–Dipartimento Protezione Civile
- SAR:
-
Synthetic aperture radar
References
Davis C, Keilis-Borok VI, Kossobokov V, Soloviev A (2012) Advance prediction of the March 11, 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake: a missed opportunity for disaster preparedness. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 1:17–32. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.03.001
Devoti R, Pietrantonio G, Riguzzi F (2014) GNSS networks for geodynamics in Italy. Física de la Tierra 26:11–24
DMG (2017) Department of Mathematics and Geosciences-University of Trieste. Intermediate-term middle-range earthquake prediction experiment (http://www.geologia.units.it/esperimento-di-previsione-dei-terremoti-mt/algorithm-cn). Accessed 10 Apr 2017
Doglioni C, Panza GF (2015) Polarized plate tectonics. Adv Geophys 56:1–167. doi:10.1016/bs.agph.2014.12.001
Galvani A, Anzidei M, Devoti R, Esposito A, Pietrantonio G, Pisani A, Riguzzi F, Serpelloni E (2013) The interseismic velocity field of the central Apennines from a dense GPS network. Ann Geophys. doi:10.4401/ag-5634
Gruppo di Lavoro INGV sul terremoto di Amatrice (2016) Primo rapporto di sintesi sul Terremoto di Amatrice Ml 6.0 del 24 Agosto 2016 (Italia Centrale). doi:10.5281/zenodo.61121
IEPT (2017) Institute of earthquake prediction theory. Russian Academy of Sciences. (http://www.mitp.ru/en/predlist.html). Accessed 10 Apr 2017
Indirli M, Razafindrakoto H, Romanelli F, Puglisi C, Lanzoni L, Milani E, Munari M, Apablaza S (2011) Hazard evaluation in Valparaiso: the MAR VASTO project. Pure Appl Geophys 168:543–582. doi:10.1007/s00024-010-0164-3 (ISSN: 0033-4553)
INGV working group on the Amatrice earthquake (2016) Second summary report on the M6.0 Amatrice earthquake of August 24, 2016 (Central Italy). doi:10.5281/zenodo.166241
Kantorovich LV, Keilis-Borok VI (1991) Earthquake prediction and decision-making: social, economic and civil protection aspects. In: Proc. International Conference on Earthquake Prediction: State-of-the-Art, 586-593, Scientific-Technical Contributions, CSEM-EMSC, Strasbourg, France (based on “Economics of earthquake prediction’’ in Proc. UNESCO Conference on Seismic Risk, Paris, 1977)
Kantorovich LV, Keilis-Borok VI, Molchan GM (1974) Seismic risk and principles of seismic zoning. In: Seismic design decision analysis. Department of Civil Engineering, MIT. Internal Study Report, p 43
Keilis-Borok VI (1996) Intermediate term earthquake prediction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:3748–3755
Keilis-Borok V, Soloviev A (eds) (2003) Nonlinear dynamics of the lithosphere and earthquake prediction, chapters: 1, 4 and 5. Springer Verlag, Berlin. ISBN 978-3-662-05298-3
Kossobokov VG (2014) Times of increased probabilities for occurrence of catastrophic earthquakes: 25 years of hypothesis testing in real time. Chapter 18. In: Wyss M, Shroder J (eds) Earthquake hazard, risk, and disasters. Elsevier, London, pp 477–504
Kossobokov VG, Soloviev AA (2015) Evaluating the results of testing algorithms for prediction of earthquakes. Dokl Earth Sci 460(2):192–194. doi:10.1134/S1028334X15020208
Kreemer C, Blewitt G, Klein EC (2014) A geodetic plate motion and global strain rate model. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 15:3849–3889. doi:10.1002/2014GC005407
Lavecchia G et al (2016) Ground deformation and source geometry of the 24 August 2016 Amatrice earthquake (Central Italy) investigated through analytical and numerical modeling of DInSAR measurements and structural-geological data. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1002/2016GL071723
Livi Bacci M, Panza GF (eds) (2016) Resilienza delle città d’arte ai terremoti – XXXIII giornata dell’ambiente – Atti dei Convegni Lincei 306, p 632 (ISBN:978-88-218-1141-8)
Molchan GM, Romashkova L, Peresan A (2017) On some methods for assessing earthquake predictions. Geophysical J Int. doi:10.1093/gji/ggx239
Panza GF, Peresan A, Magrin A, Vaccari F, Sabadini R, Crippa B, Marotta AM, Splendore R, Barzaghi R, Borghi A, Cannizzaro L, Amodio A, Zoffoli S (2011) The SISMA prototype system: integrating geophysical modeling and earth observation for time-dependent seismic hazard assessment. Nat Hazards (2013) 69:1179–1198. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9981-7
Peresan A (2017) Recent developments in the detection of seismicity patterns for the Italian region. In: Ouzounov D, Pulinets S, Hattori K, Taylor P (eds) Pre-earthquake processes: a multi-disciplinary approach to earthquake prediction studies. AGU/Wiley, p 35x
Peresan A, Kossobokov V, Romashkova L, Panza GF (2005) Intermediate-term middle-range earthquake predictions in Italy: a review. Earth Sci Rev 69(2005):97–132
Peresan A, Kossobokov V, Panza GF (2012) Operational earthquake forecast/prediction. Rend Fis Acc Lincei 23:131–138. doi:10.1007/s12210-012-0171-7
Peresan A, Gorshkov A, Soloviev A, Panza GF (2015) The contribution of pattern recognition of seismic and morphostructural data to seismic hazard assessment. Boll Geofis Teorica ed Applicata 56:295–328. doi:10.4430/bgta0141
Peresan A, Kossobokov VI, Romashkova L, Magrin A, Soloviev A, Panza GF (2016) Time-dependent neo-deterministic seismic hazard scenarios: Preliminary report on the M6.2 Central Italy earthquake, 24th August 2016. New Concepts Global Tecton 4(3):487–493
Piccardi L et al (2016) The August 24, 2016, Amatrice earthquake (Mw 6.0): field evidence of on- fault effects. Preliminary report. http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files/notizie-ispra/notizie-2016/sisma-italia-centrale/REPORT_Amatrice_en_2016_09_16.compressed.pdf
Riguzzi F, Crespi M, Devoti R, Doglioni C, Pietrantonio G, Pisani AR (2013) Strain rate relaxation of normal and thrust faults in Italy. Geophys J Int 195(2):815–820. doi:10.1093/gji/ggt304
Rotwain IM, Keilis-Borok VI, Botwina L (1997) Premonitory transformation of steel fracturing and seismicity. Phys Earth Planet Interiors 101:61–71
Wright TJ (2016) The earthquake deformation cycle. A&G 57(4):4.20–4.26. doi:10.1093/astrogeo/atw148
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted with Roberto Devoti, Federica Riguzzi, Riccardo Lanari, Manuela Bonano, Andrea Magrin, and Volodya Kossobokov for contributing GPS data, SAR data, and prior geological information, and for unselfish fruitful discussions that helped shaping up this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Panza, G.F., Peresan, A., Sansò, F. et al. How geodesy can contribute to the understanding and prediction of earthquakes. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 29 (Suppl 1), 81–93 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-017-0626-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-017-0626-y