4.6 Article

A morphotectonic approach to the study of earthquakes in Rome

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
卷 22, 期 7, 页码 2445-2457

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/nhess-22-2445-2022

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rome has the longest historical record of earthquakes, but no destructive earthquake has been reported in the sources. Through the analysis of a recent moderate earthquake, researchers found that it reactivated an ancient fault and the drainage network in the area is controlled by a set of buried faults. The lack of strong seismicity in the historical record may be explained by the presence of small faults and a weaker tectonic regime compared to the Pleistocene.
Rome has the world's longest historical record of felt earthquakes, with more than 100 events during the last 2600 years. However, no destructive earthquake has been reported in the sources, and all of the greatest damage suffered in the past has been attributed to far-field events. While this fact suggests that a moderate seismotectonic regime characterizes the Roman area, no study has provided a comprehensive explanation for the lack of strong earthquakes in the region. Through the analysis of the focal mechanism and the morphostructural setting of the epicentral area of a typical moderate earthquake (M-1 = 3.3) that recently occurred in the northern urban area of Rome, we demonstrate that this event reactivated a buried segment of an ancient fault generated under both a different and a stronger tectonic regime than that which is presently active. We also show that the evident structural control over the drainage network in this area reflects an extreme degree of fragmentation of a set of buried faults generated under two competing stress fields throughout the Pleistocene. Small faults and a present-day weaker tectonic regime with respect to that acting during the Pleistocene might explain the lack of strong seismicity in the long historical record, suggesting that a large earthquake is not likely to occur.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据