4.6 Article

Imprint of Rupture Directivity From Ground Motions of the 24 August 2016 Mw6.2 Central Italy Earthquake

Journal

TECTONICS
Volume 36, Issue 12, Pages 3178-3191

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2017TC004673

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Science Foundation of the Institute of Engineering Mechanics, CEA [2016A04]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1534202, 51308515]
  3. National Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province [LC2015022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An M(w)6.2 earthquake occurred in Central Italy on 24 August 2016. The objective of this study was to reveal the imprint of rupture directivity using the strong motion recordings. The strong motion stations were separated into two groups: southeast (SE) and northwest (NW). The effects of rupture directivity on the peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), and pseudo spectral acceleration (PSA) were investigated. The observed values of these parameters were compared with predicted values derived from ground motion prediction equations. The results showed that the residuals between the observed and predicted PGAs, PGVs, and PSAs at periods of T<1s were correlated significantly with azimuth angle and generally larger in the NW sector, reflecting that the observed PGAs, PGVs, and short-period PSAs in the NW sector were generally larger than observed in the SE sector. These phenomena are accordant with the theoretical law that the rupture directivity causes higher amplitudes in the forward direction compared with the backward direction. Finally, selected source rupture parameters were inverted using PGAs and PGVs. This revealed that the rupture was predominantly unilateral rupture, the major rupture was likely at an azimuth of similar to 360 degrees, and the length of the major rupture was proportional to 70%-100% of the total ruptured fault, confirming that rupture directivity caused the differences in the ground motions observed in the SE and NW sectors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available