Search

As supplementary material we propose a publication, in which there is the first preliminary attribution of macroseismic intensity for the 1980 earthquake: "Il terremoto del 23-11-1980. Rilievo Macrosismico Stato di Avanzamento al 27-1-1981" [29] and some topographic maps of the effects induced by the 1980 IrpiniaLucania earthquake, which were plotted in the field. Soon after the November 23, 1980 Irpinia - Lucania earthquake, several groups of geologists of the CNR-PFG projects, mapped the coseismic geological effects in a wide portion of the epicentral area. We include some of the original sketch of topographic maps (form 1:25.000 topographic maps of Istituto Geografico Militare, I.G.M., 1955) saved as a historical record of the time, that the Professor Paolo Scandone, as leader of PFG project, made available many years after the earthquake on which the coseismic effects of the 1980 earthquake were mapped. On the excerpts of the topographic maps mainly earthquake-induced fractures are shown, and in some cases it has been marked occurrence of landslides as well as portions of earthquake-induced faults. Although it must be pointed out that many researchers at the time did not believe that these faults were of tectonic origin but ascribed all of them either to pure gravitative sliding or to debris compactation [11]. Only a few Italian researchers interpreted as due tectonic origin the fractures occurred along the Piano di Pecore on Mt. Marzano (186 Colliano IISW), or Sele Valley and at Pantano di S. Gregorio Magno (198 Buccino, I, NE; 199 Vietri di Potenza, IV, NW) [9,10], as later documented by several researchers who reconstructed the end to end seismogenic fault segments [12-17]. As supplementary material, the following are the cartographic union framework of the 1: 25,000 topographic maps attached and the extracts of these maps on which are mapped the coseismic effects detected during the field survey

In regions with low-to-moderate seismicity, the return-period of seismic events with large magnitudes is relatively high. Nevertheless, historical seismic events are relevant for the evaluation of seismic hazard in those regions. Thus, seismologists study the records of the effects of historical earthquakes to map the distribution intensity points, using an Intensity Scale. Afterwards, the maximum intensity point is identified as well as the probable epicentral location and magnitude. Another method, introduced by earthquake engineers, incorporates the knowledge of the behaviour of structures into posterior distributions of magnitude using fragility functions and the damage reported in historical documents. The method uses the total probability theorem to combine the uncertainty in the structural behaviour, ground motion intensity, site-to-source distance. Then, the Bayes’s theorem is employed to update a prior magnitude model into a posterior magnitude distribution. Thus, the reduction of the uncertainty in the final estimates requires the preliminary application of the method to instrumental events in order to validate the appropriate framework to address historical seismicity, namely ground motion and structural response. This paper investigates the earthquakes of January 1st 1980 with Mw=6.8-7.2 and of July 9th 1998 with Mw=5.9-6.2 in Azores Islands (Portugal) as study cases to test the sensitivity to different attenuation models Ambraseys et al. (2005) and Akkar et al. (2014). A single set of fragility functions, derived from a detailed vulnerability assessment in Faial, is assumed to model the structural response in both events. The results show that, for both events, the attenuation model from Akkar et al. (2014) and the fault source model presented results closer to those of detailed methods. Discrepancies can also be explained by differences in the prior distance model resulting from source models assumptions. The intervals Mw=5.96±0.53 and Mw=6.91±0.42 have been estimated for the 1998 and the 1980 earthquake, respectively. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Reconstruction after an earthquake is often seen as a material issue, which concerns &ldquo, objects&rdquo, such as houses, roofs, and streets. This point of view is supported by the mass media showing the work progress in the disaster areas, especially in conjunction with anniversaries. Rather, we should consider reconstruction as a complex social process in which cultural backgrounds, expectations, and ideas of the future come into play, without neglecting geological, historical, legislative, economic, and political factors. Combining oral history sources and archival records, the article shows the paths taken by two small towns among the most affected by the earthquake of 23rd November 1980 (Mw 6.9). These towns have made opposite reconstruction choices (in situ and ex novo) representing two classical and different ways in which human societies can face their past and think their own future. A careful analysis of these forty-year experiences, with a special focus on cultural heritage, provides useful indications for post-disaster reconstructions in which more attention to the process, and not just to the final product, should be paid.