GNGTS 2011

SESSIONE 2.1

the Krsko syncline. 3) Another type of active structures represents N (NE to NW) trending faults between the Balaton faults. These faults are considered as CCW rotating Riedel type faults in the sinistral strike-slip zone. 4) In the Western part of the Krsko Basin, the NW trending faults of the Idrija zone also affect the structural pattern to a certain degree.
References
ARSO; 2011a:http://www.arso.gov.si/potresi/potresna%20aktivnost/magnitude_potresov.html ARSO; 2011b:http://www.arso.gov.si/potresi/potresna%20aktivnost/Mocni_potresi_v_ preteklosti.pdf Gosar, A.; 1998: Seismic reflection surveys of the Krs ko basin structure: implications for earthquake hazard at the Krs ko nuclear power plant, southeast Slovenia. J. appl. geophys., 39/3, 131-153. Gosar, A., Komac, M. and Poljak, M.; 2005: Structural model of the pre-Tertiary basement in the Krs ko basin. Geologija, 48/1, 23 32, Ljubljana. doi:10.5475/geologija.2005.004 Gosar, A.; 2008: Gravity modelling along seismic reflection profiles in the Krs ko basin (SE Slovenia). Geologica Carphatica, 59, 147-158. Placer, L.; 1998: Structural meaning of the Sava Folds. Geologija, 41, 191221, Ljubljana. Poljak, M., Gosar, A., Zivcic, M.; 2010: Active tectonics in Slovenia. In: Colantoni, P., Mencucci, D., Menichetti, M., Nesci, O. (eds.), International Geological Congress on the Adriatic Area (ADRIA 2006), Urbino, 19-20 June 2006. Geology of the Adriatic area, (GeoActa, Spec. pub. 3). Department of Earth and Geological-Environmental Sciences, University of Bologna, pp. 15-24, Bologna. Verbic, T.; 2004: Quaternary stratigraphy and neotectonics of the eastern Krsko basin. Part 1: Straigraphy. Razprave IV. Razreda Sazu, 46/1, 171-216. Vidrih, R. (ed); 2006: Drzavna mreza potresnih opazovalnic. ARSO, Urad za seizmologijo in geologijo, 287 pp.

SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD: STATE OF THE ART IN ITALY AND PROPOSAL FOR EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING CRITERIA. NORMAL FAULTS
P. Boncio 1, P. Galli 2, G. Naso 2, A. Pizzi 1
1 Universit G. DAnnunzio di ChietiPescara, Chieti, Italy 2 Dipartimento della protezione civile, Roma, Italy

Introduction. Important buildings, including ordinary buildings and critical facilities, should not be erected on the surface trace or in the immediate vicinity of tectonic faults recognized as being seismically active (e.g., EC8-5, 2003), due to surface fault rupture hazard (SFRH). SFRH can be considered a localized seismic hazard due to the breaching of the ground surface from slip along a fault during a large earthquake. This motion may offset, tilt, distort and damage buildings on or in the vicinity of the fault trace. SFRH also encompasses fault creep, but this concerns only a few faults worldwide. Although SFRH should be one of the most easily detectable seismic hazards, due to the visibility of active fault traces, the 6 April 2009 LAquila earthquake in central Italy (Mw 6.3) demonstrates that there is much progress to be made in assessing the hazard, even in developed countries exposed to seismic risk. Indeed, the 2009 normal faulting surface ruptures occurred across populated areas, producing mild-to-moderate damages to infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, roads) and buildings, including structures less than a few years old. A valuable reference point aimed at mitigating SFRH is the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P), which was adopted by the State of California (USA) since 1972 (Bryan and Hart, 2007). The A-P defines earthquake fault zones as regulatory zones around the surface traces of active faults within which fault-rupture hazard may occur and in which detailed investigations (geological, high-resolution geophysical, paleoseismological) are required prior to building structures for human occupancy. The A-P also defines a fault setback as the distance from the active fault trace within which critical facilities and structures designed for human occupancy cannot be built. The minimum setback from an active fault is 50 feet (15 m) unless proven otherwise. In Italy, there are no comparable regulations for new or retrofitted construction on or near active faults. The national regulations for building design in seismically active areas do not consider SFRH (NTC, 2008), and the only official Italian publication addressing this problem is contained in the

200

GNGTS 2011

SESSIONE 2.1

guidelines and criteria for seismic microzonation (Working Group MS, 2008). These guidelines define specific micro-zones, referred to as zones of instability, surrounding active faults during seismic microzonation studies. Even if not explicitly stated, the Working Group MS (2008) was inspired by the A-P. The Working Group MS (2008) refers to a case study on the Norcia fault in central Italy and suggests the use of zones centered on the fault trace, with setbacks of 15 m for known fault traces and 75 m for uncertain fault traces. However, there is not an explicit distinction between earthquake fault zones and fault setbacks, and the general criteria for defining the shape and width of the zones are not explained. The Eurocode 8 (Part 5, section 4.1.2: Proximity to seismically active faults; EC8-5, 2003) states that buildings important for public safety shall not be erected in the immediate vicinity of active faults (Late Quaternary activity). Moreover, special geological investigations shall be carried out for urban planning and for the erection of important structures near potentially active faults in areas of high seismicity. However, there are no specifics on what immediate vicinity means in terms of distance from the trace of an active fault (e.g., the setback) or on how wide the zone around a potentially active fault (e.g., the earthquake fault zone) should be for conducting special geological investigations. In this contribution, the characteristics of the 2009 surface ruptures are compared with data collected from the literature for several other normal faulting earthquake surface ruptures worldwide. Our main purpose is 1) to provide insight on how field observations can be translated into general criteria for shaping zones of local SFRH along Apennine-type normal faults, applicable to Italy and other areas with comparable seismotectonic setting and seismic hazard, and 2) to provide a case study to help define basic criteria for establishing a minimum width for earthquake fault zones and fault setbacks along active normal faults, even for regions that already have regulations for SFRH. Insight from the 2009 LAquila earthquake (Mw 6.3, central Italy). The field survey performed along the Paganica and San Gregorio normal faults allowed us to observe a number of ground ruptures (see Fig. 1 for a synthetic section view). In particular, the ground ruptures include: a) en chelon or linear fractures with cm-sized apertures and normal dip-slip of few cm down to the SW, b) linear fissures with cm-sized opening without vertical slip and, c) en chelon cracks. In general, the aperture and dip-slip of the fractures range between few mm to a maximum of 10-15 cm, with most of the values between 1 cm and 6 cm (see Boncio et al., 2010). The ruptures cut indis-

Fig. 1 Section views synthesizing the occurrence of coseismic surface faulting/fracturing along the (a) Paganica and (b) San Gregorio normal faults.

201

GNGTS 2011

SESSIONE 2.1

tinctly the ground surface, roads and human structures of different materials, including reinforced concrete. We recognized four main types of ground deformation: - Type 1 is coseismic surface faulting in a strict sense. The seismic rupture propagated upwards along the main fault, breaching the ground surface during the coseismic phase (e.g., free faces at the base of pre-existing fault scarps on strongly lithified rocks). Where this type of deformation crossed buildings or facilities, the damage was very localized along the fault trace. - Type 2 is, again, coseismic surface faulting in a strict sense, but the seismic slip breached the surface along synthetic splays cutting through poorly consolidated deposits accumulated in the hanging wall of the main fault. Synthetic splays occurred on the hanging wall of the main fault, at a distance ranging from few meters to ~35 m or even at larger distances (120-140 m). - Type 3 deformation is characterized by open fissures along the trace of the main fault, where the fault is covered by unconsolidated colluvium or alluvium. These fissures are accompanied by a flexure of the hanging wall having a wavelength of few meters. - Type 4 deformation is typical of the San Gregorio normal fault and is characterized by linear fissures and en chelon cracks, without appreciable vertical displacement, located on the hanging wall of the seismogenic fault, at a distance of 60-to-100 m from the fault trace. Criteria for delineating zones of surface fault rupture hazard along active normal faults. The data from the Paganica and San Gregorio faults (Fig. 1), integrated with data from several normal faulting earthquake surface ruptures worldwide, are used here to propose criteria for shaping Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ) and Fault Setbacks (S). The model of Fig. 2 might help in defining general criteria appropriate for normal faults. We suggest that both the EFZ and S should be asymmetrically shaped around the trace of the active fault, whit a wider zone in the hanging wall compared to the footwall. This is in agreement with the observation that usually fault ruptures occur along the fault trace and in the hanging wall. This also matches with the general geologic observation that the deformation associated to a dip-slip fault mostly focuses in the hanging wall block. The width of the main deformation zone observed along the Paganica fault can be used for defining the minimum S. The proposed S at the hanging wall (Shw in Fig. 2a, d) is 40 m, which includes the belt of coseismic faulting and fracturing (30-35 m) plus a possible error (5 m) in mapping the ground ruptures. At the footwall, a general criterion should include a cartographic error in locating the trace of the active fault on topographic maps, even if the fault trace is certain. The error in tracing the fault on a 1:5,000-scale topographic map can be on the order of 5 m if the fault appears as a well-defined fault plane on lithified rocks; but, it can increase to 10-15 m (2-3 mm on the map) if the fault appears as a degraded fault scarp on poorly consolidated deposits, as frequently observed. Therefore we propose a minimum footwall S (Sfw) of 15 m in order to account for such an operational uncertainty. The choice of 15 m is in line with most minimum S values adopted in the USA. The EFZ should be wider than the minimum S. In fact, the EFZ should be a zone mapped before any earthquake during standard seismic microzonation actions and it should include all the reasonably inferred fault rupture hazards, including both the main fault and the possible active branches. Detailed investigations prior to building structures for human occupancy will define if there is additional hazard due to active branches or not. If the active branches are present, they will be traced in detail and the appropriate S will be defined. Using the Paganica fault as an example, the associated EFZ must include both the main deformation zone and the reactivated synthetic splays located far from the fault trace (120-140 m). Therefore, the EFZ should extend at the hanging wall of the main fault at least 150 m (EFZhw in Fig. 2a). At the footwall, probably a width of 30 m is sufficient for a fault trace certainly mapped (EFZfw in Fig. 2a, d). In cases of uncertain fault traces, instead of using wider EFZs, a zone of geologic uncertainty is needed. Fig. 2b is an example of a fault trace bracketed within a zone of geologic uncertainty (g.u.). The resulting EFZ will be the sum of the hanging wall EFZ and footwall EFZ described above to the width of the zone of g.u.. In cases where the width of the area of g.u. cannot be assessed

202

GNGTS 2011

SESSIONE 2.1

Fig. 2 - Proposal of general criteria for shaping and sizing the Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ) and Fault Setbacks (S) on both the hanging wall (hw) and footwall (fw) of active normal faults; a) known fault trace; b) fault trace bracketed with a zone of geological uncertainty (g.u.); c) uncertain fault trace; d) map view.

(e.g., areas with flat topography), a possibility is to adopt symmetric EFZs, centred on the most likely fault trace and having the maximum width at both the hanging wall and footwall (e.g., 150 + 150 m) (Fig. 2c). The comparison of the 2009 case study with surface ruptures collected from the literature for several normal faulting earthquakes world-wide suggests that the proposed criteria are adequate for dip-slip active normal faults.
Boncio P., Pizzi A., Brozzetti F., Pomposo G., Lavecchia G., Di Naccio D. and Ferrarini F.; 2010: Coseismic ground deformation of the April 6th 2009 LAquila earthquake (central Italy, Mw6.3). Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, doi:10.1029/2010GL042807. Bryant W.A., Hart E.W.; 2007: Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, 41 pp. EC8-5; 2003: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. European Standard, Final Draft prEN 1998-5, Brussels, December 2003. NTC; 2008: Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. DM 14 gennaio 2008, Gazzetta Ufficiale, n. 29 del 4 febbraio 2008, Supplemento Ordinario n. 30, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Roma (www.cslp.it). Working Group MS; 2008: Indirizzi e Criteri per la Microzonazione Sismica. Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Provincie autonome, Dipartimento della protezione civile, Roma, 3 vol. and Cd-rom.

References

203