Impact of Ground Effects for an Appropriate Mitigation Strategy in Seismic Area: The Example of Guatemala 1976 Earthquake

Porfido, Sabina; Esposito, E.; Spiga, Efisio; Sacchi, Marco; Molisso, Flavia; Mazzola, S.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09057-3_117

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We find that the majority of environmental damage is observed in the immediate rupture zone, with the exception of rare rockfalls in prone-areas (e.g., road cuttings) at distances of~200 km, and rare ground-water fluctuations up to 250 km away for some but not all events where ground water data was investigated. While this dataset likely does not capture the full range of potential ESI values and affected area due to sparse reporting of EEEs in the literature, it does provide a basis for comparing the maximum ESI and magnitude of reverse earthquakes in intraplate, low-topography, near-surface crystalline bedrock (in most cases), and generally arid settings against events in tectonically and geomorphically diverse regions (e.g., [151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159]). Table 10.…”

Section: Surface Rupture Bedrock Controls Updated Datasets and Envirmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface-Rupturing Historical Earthquakes in Australia and Their Environmental Effects: New Insights from Re-Analyses of Observational Data

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We digitize surface rupture maps and compile observational data from 67 publications on ten of eleven historical, surface-rupturing earthquakes in Australia in order to analyze the prevailing characteristics of surface ruptures and other environmental effects in this crystalline basement-dominated intraplate environment. The studied earthquakes occurred between 1968 and 2018, and range in moment magnitude (Mw) from 4.7 to 6.6. All earthquakes involved co-seismic reverse faulting (with varying amounts of strike-slip) on single or multiple (1–6) discrete faults of ≥ 1 km length that are distinguished by orientation and kinematic criteria. Nine of ten earthquakes have surface-rupturing fault orientations that align with prevailing linear anomalies in geophysical (gravity and magnetic) data and bedrock structure (foliations and/or quartz veins and/or intrusive boundaries and/or pre-existing faults), indicating strong control of inherited crustal structure on contemporary faulting. Rupture kinematics are consistent with horizontal shortening driven by regional trajectories of horizontal compressive stress. The lack of precision in seismological data prohibits the assessment of whether surface ruptures project to hypocentral locations via contiguous, planar principal slip zones or whether rupture segmentation occurs between seismogenic depths and the surface. Rupture centroids of 1–4 km in depth indicate predominantly shallow seismic moment release. No studied earthquakes have unambiguous geological evidence for preceding surface-rupturing earthquakes on the same faults and five earthquakes contain evidence of absence of preceding ruptures since the late Pleistocene, collectively highlighting the challenge of using mapped active faults to predict future seismic hazards. Estimated maximum fault slip rates are 0.2–9.1 m Myr-1 with at least one order of uncertainty. New estimates for rupture length, fault dip, and coseismic net slip can be used to improve future iterations of earthquake magnitude—source size—displacement scaling equations. Observed environmental effects include primary surface rupture, secondary fracture/cracks, fissures, rock falls, ground-water anomalies, vegetation damage, sand-blows / liquefaction, displaced rock fragments, and holes from collapsible soil failure, at maximum estimated epicentral distances ranging from 0 to ~250 km. ESI-07 intensity-scale estimates range by ± 3 classes in each earthquake, depending on the effect considered. Comparing Mw-ESI relationships across geologically diverse environments is a fruitful avenue for future research.

show abstract

Section: Surface Rupture Bedrock Controls Updated Datasets and Envirmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface-Rupturing Historical Earthquakes in Australia and Their Environmental Effects: New Insights from Re-Analyses of Observational Data

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The intensity level in terms of the ESI scale was evaluated on the basis of both primary effects (e.g., surface faulting) and secondary effects (slope movements, liquefaction, and ground rupture features). The higher ESI intensity level of XI [6] was attributed by taking into account the extent of the area and ground volume involved in slope failures (e.g., landslides, rock-falls, avalanches) [6,22] and was located along the fault zone, as expected. The areal distribution of damages and ground effects reported from localities like Estancia de la Virgen, San Martin Jilotepeque and San Josè Poaquil was helpful in defining the ESI X degree line.…”

Section: The 4 February 1976 Earthquakementioning

confidence: 56%

“…The maximum intensity value of the ESI scale was attributed to Cabanas, Chuarrancho, El Progreso, Gualan, Quebradas, and Subinal cities, where the damage and the ground effects were extremely intense and could be appropriately described by XI-ESI degree. The secondary effects (mostly landslides) were evaluated in terms of areal extent involved and total volume displaced by slope instability processes [6,22].…”

Section: Esi Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The 1976 Guatemala Earthquake: ESI Scale and Probabilistic/Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis Approaches

Caccavale

Sacchi

Spiga³

et al. 2019

Geosciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A hazard assessment of the 1976 Guatemala earthquake (M = 7.5) was conducted to achieve a better definition of the seismic hazard. The assessment was based on the environmental effects that had effectively contributed to the high destructive impact of that event. An interdisciplinary approach was adopted by integrating: (1) historical data; (2) co-seismic geological effects in terms of Environmental Seismic Intensity (ESI) scale intensity values; and (3) ground shaking data estimated by a probabilistic/deterministic approach. A detailed analysis of primary and secondary effects was conducted for a set of 24 localities, to obtain a better evaluation of seismic intensity. The new intensity values were compared with the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) and Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) distribution estimated using a probabilistic/deterministic hazard analysis approach for the target area. Our results are evidence that the probabilistic/deterministic hazard analysis procedures may result in very different indications on the PGA distributions. Moreover, PGA values often display significant discrepancy from the macroseismic intensity values calculated with the ESI scale. Therefore, the incorporation of the environmental earth effects into the probabilistic/deterministic hazard analysis appears to be mandatory in order to achieve a more accurate seismic estimation.

show abstract

“…Numbers indicate the total number (from a maximum of 16) of stakeholders proposing each hazard interaction as being possible in Guatemala. and false negatives (FNs) and can be expressed as follows (Matthews, 1975;Powers, 2011):…”

Section: Scalability and Relevance Of Regional Interaction Framework For Disaster Risk Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction of regional multi-hazard interaction frameworks, with an application to Guatemala

Gill

Malamud

Barillas³

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Here we present an interdisciplinary approach to developing comprehensive, systematic, and evidenced visual syntheses of potential natural-hazard interactions at regional scales (or regional interaction frameworks). Frameworks can help with understanding the multi-hazard environment of a specific spatial extent. We explain our approach and apply this in Guatemala, developing regional interaction frameworks for national and sub-national (southern Guatemalan Highlands) spatial extents. The frameworks are constructed and populated using five evidence types relevant to natural-hazard interactions: (A) internationally accessible literature (93 peer-reviewed and 76 grey-literature sources), (B) locally accessible civil-protection bulletins (267 bulletins from 11 June to 15 October 2010), (C) field observations, (D) stakeholder interviews (19 semi-structured interviews), and (E) a stakeholder workshop (16 participants). These five evidence types were synthesised to determine an appropriate natural-hazard classification scheme for Guatemala, with 6 natural-hazard groups, 19 hazard types, and 37 hazard sub-types. For a national spatial extent in Guatemala, we proceed to construct and populate a regional interaction framework (matrix form), identifying 50 possible interactions between 19 hazard types. For a sub-national spatial extent (southern Guatemalan Highlands), we construct and populate a regional interaction framework (matrix form), identifying 114 possible interactions between 33 hazard sub-types relevant in the southern Guatemalan Highlands. We also use this evidence to explore networks of multi-hazard interactions (cascades) and anthropogenic processes that can trigger natural hazards. We present this information through accessible visualisations to improve understanding of multi-hazard interactions in Guatemala. We believe that our regional interaction framework's approach to multi-hazards is scalable, working at global to local scales with differing resolutions of information. Our approach can also be replicated in other geographical settings. We demonstrate how regional interaction frameworks and the discussion of potential scenarios arising from them can help with enhancing the cross-institutional dialogue on multi-hazard interactions and their likelihood and potential impacts. We review future research directions and steps to embed interaction frameworks into agencies contributing to the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

show abstract

Impact of Ground Effects for an Appropriate Mitigation Strategy in Seismic Area: The Example of Guatemala 1976 Earthquake

Cited by 9 publications

References 8 publications

Surface-Rupturing Historical Earthquakes in Australia and Their Environmental Effects: New Insights from Re-Analyses of Observational Data

Surface-Rupturing Historical Earthquakes in Australia and Their Environmental Effects: New Insights from Re-Analyses of Observational Data

The 1976 Guatemala Earthquake: ESI Scale and Probabilistic/Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis Approaches

Construction of regional multi-hazard interaction frameworks, with an application to Guatemala

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About