“…Positively identifying large active faults and assigning historical earthquakes to each of them is a difficult and often challenging task over much of Italy, and the 1930 earthquake well represents this condition. Difficulties arise from the predominance of blind faulting combined with the presence of the inherited tectonic landscape and with the relatively low rates of present tectonic deformation (see Valensise and Pantosti, 2001a, and Vannoli et al, 2012, 2015.…”
On 30 October 1930, an M w 5.8 earthquake hit the northern Marche coastal area (central Italy), causing significant damage (I 0 VIII-IX degree Mercalli-CancaniSieberg) along a 40 km stretch of the Adriatic coast between Pesaro and Ancona, centered on the town of Senigallia. This area is characterized by relatively infrequent and moderate-sized earthquakes and by elusive active faults. In spite of the presence of wellknown northwest-southeast-trending, northeast-verging fault-propagation folds forming the outer thrusts of the Apennines, the current level of activity, and the kinematics of these coastal structures are still controversial.We present a multidisciplinary analysis of the source of the 30 October 1930 Senigallia earthquake, combining instrumental and macroseismic data and elaborations with available evidence from geological and tectonic investigations. We determine the main seismic parameters of the source, including the earthquake location, its magnitude, and, for the first time, its focal mechanism, providing the first instrumental evidence for thrust faulting along the northern Marche coastal belt.Our findings provide conclusive evidence for the current activity of the northern Marche coastal thrusts. As such they have significant implications for the seismic hazard of the area, a densely populated region that hosts historical heritage, tourism facilities, industrial districts, and key transportation infrastructures.Online Material: Description of method used for moment tensor computation, tables of focal mechanisms and recording stations, and figures of seismic flux and uncertainty maps for macroseismic epicenters.
“…Positively identifying large active faults and assigning historical earthquakes to each of them is a difficult and often challenging task over much of Italy, and the 1930 earthquake well represents this condition. Difficulties arise from the predominance of blind faulting combined with the presence of the inherited tectonic landscape and with the relatively low rates of present tectonic deformation (see Valensise and Pantosti, 2001a, and Vannoli et al, 2012, 2015.…”
On 30 October 1930, an M w 5.8 earthquake hit the northern Marche coastal area (central Italy), causing significant damage (I 0 VIII-IX degree Mercalli-CancaniSieberg) along a 40 km stretch of the Adriatic coast between Pesaro and Ancona, centered on the town of Senigallia. This area is characterized by relatively infrequent and moderate-sized earthquakes and by elusive active faults. In spite of the presence of wellknown northwest-southeast-trending, northeast-verging fault-propagation folds forming the outer thrusts of the Apennines, the current level of activity, and the kinematics of these coastal structures are still controversial.We present a multidisciplinary analysis of the source of the 30 October 1930 Senigallia earthquake, combining instrumental and macroseismic data and elaborations with available evidence from geological and tectonic investigations. We determine the main seismic parameters of the source, including the earthquake location, its magnitude, and, for the first time, its focal mechanism, providing the first instrumental evidence for thrust faulting along the northern Marche coastal belt.Our findings provide conclusive evidence for the current activity of the northern Marche coastal thrusts. As such they have significant implications for the seismic hazard of the area, a densely populated region that hosts historical heritage, tourism facilities, industrial districts, and key transportation infrastructures.Online Material: Description of method used for moment tensor computation, tables of focal mechanisms and recording stations, and figures of seismic flux and uncertainty maps for macroseismic epicenters.
“…1a) that originated from the Cenozoic collision between the European plate and the Adria plate 35 . These thrusts represent the frontal portion of the Northern Apennines fold-and-thrust belt 36 and are assumed to generate earthquakes up to magnitude 6.1 at depths of 2–10 km 37, 38 . The largest historical earthquakes occurred more than 500 years ago (e.g., Mw 5.5 on November 17, 1570 and Mw 4.7 on March 17, 1574) 39 .Figure 1( a ) Main thrust alignment in Italy.…”
The potential for oilfield activities to trigger earthquakes in seismogenic areas has been hotly debated. Our model compares the stress changes from remote water injection and a natural earthquake, both of which occurred in northern Italy in recent years, and their potential effects on a nearby Mw 5.9 earthquake that occurred in 2012. First, we calculate the Coulomb stress from 20 years of fluid injection in a nearby oilfield by using a poroelastic model. Then, we compute the stress changes for a 2011 Mw 4.5 earthquake that occurred close to the area of the 2012 mainshock. We found that anthropogenic activities produced an effect that was less than 10% of that generated by the Mw 4.5 earthquake. Therefore, the 2012 earthquake was likely associated with a natural stress increase. The probability of triggering depends on the magnitude of recent earthquakes, the amount of injected water, the distance from an event, and the proximity to the failure of the activated fault. Determining changes that are associated with seismic hazards requires poroelastic area-specific models that include both tectonic and anthropogenic activities. This comprehensive approach is particularly important when assessing the risk of triggered seismicity near densely populated areas.
“…The 20th and 29th May 2012 main shocks and aftershocks seismic sequence concentrated within the Mesozoic-Tertiary carbonates [58] below the terrigenous sedimentary cover, compatibly with the reactivation of pre-existing normal faults inherited from the previous Mesozoic extensional tectonics [59]. The few epicenters located in the area of interest generally have a depth between 25 and 30 km, possibly addressable to deep transverse structures perpendicular to the chain elongation (sensu [60]), sensibly far from the depths of the sedimentary units target of this evaluation. Fig.…”
Section: Geological and Seismotectonic Backgroundmentioning
The estimation of CO 2 storage capacity in deep geologic formations is a pre-requisite for an efficient and safe application of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The evaluation of storage resources for CO 2 geological sequestration is a challenging task and has been tackled using several static algorithms and dynamic methods, on a variety of scales ranging from country to site-specific. The purpose of this study is to present an up-to-date as well as an overall review of the storage capacity algorithms for oil and gas reservoirs, coal seams, and deep saline aquifers, including some worldwide estimation examples. Moreover, a practical application at local scale was also performed for an Italian deep reservoir located in the Po Plain (Northern Italy). The effective storage capacities were obtained applying the commonly established static methods, using both the theoretical and the geocellular volume of the reservoir. Although a conservative approach, this study demonstrates that the selected structure has favorable characteristics for CO 2 geological storage and has the capacity to host the most part of the Po Plain CO 2 emissions for several decades.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
