4.7 Review

Earthquake synchrony and clustering on Fucino faults (Central Italy) as revealed from in situ 36Cl exposure dating

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
Volume 118, Issue 9, Pages 4948-4974

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/jgrb.50299

Keywords

Paleoseismology; Chlorine 36; Italy; Synchrony; Large Earthquakes; Cluster

Funding

  1. INSU-CNRS Dyeti program
  2. French ANR (project QUAKonSCARPS) [ANR-06-CATT-008-01-02-0103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We recover the Holocene earthquake history of seven seismogenic normal faults in the Fucino system, central Italy. We collected 800 samples from the well-preserved limestone scarps of the faults and modeled their Cl-36 concentrations to derive their seismic exhumation history. We found that>30 large earthquakes broke the faults in synchrony over the last 12 ka. The seven faults released strain at the same periods of time, 12-9 ka, 5-3 ka, and 1.5-1 ka. On all faults, the strain accumulation and release occurred in 3-6 ka supercycles, each included a 3-5 ka phase of slow ( 0.5-2 mm/yr) strain accumulation in relative quiescence, followed by a cluster of three to four large earthquakes or earthquake sequences that released most of the strain in<1-2 ka. The large earthquakes repeated every 0.50.3 ka during the paroxysmal phases and every 4.30.9 ka between those phases. Earthquakes on the northern faults produced twice larger surface slips (similar to 2 m) and had larger magnitudes (Mw 6.2-6.7) than those on the southern faults. On most faults, the relative strain level was found to control the amount of slip and the time of occurrence of the next large earthquake. Faults entered a phase of clustered activity once they had reached a specific relative strain threshold. The Tre Monti fault is identified as the most prone to break over the next century. Our data document earthquake synchrony and clustering at a broader space and time scale than has been reported to date.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available