Search

International audience; The Mw 6.4 right-lateral Petrinja earthquake (2020, Croatia) is one of the largest continental earthquakes of central Europe for decades. The slip pattern of such events is usually difficult to retrieve with terrestrial geodesy due to limited monitoring means. This study takes advantage of a unique data set of dense measurements of coseismic displacement in the epicentral area, obtained by repeated measurements of benchmark networks designed for civilian purposes, and supplemented by far-field continuous GNSS measurements. Elastic modeling of these data shows two coseismic slip patches that extend over a 15 × 10 km rupture plane, locally reaching the surface, and that a right-lateral sub-parallel secondary fault in the central part of the rupture likely accommodated part of the coseismic deformation. This study demonstrates that rapid re-measurement of pre-existing civilian networks offers unique coseismic constrains in the near-field where InSAR or optical image correlation may decorrelate. more...

International audience

The Petrinja-Pokupsko fault-system is a NW-SE right-lateral fault system that ruptured during the 29 December 2020 Mw 6.4 earthquake (~40km south-east of Zagreb, Croatia). Field analysis revealed opening of cracks and offsets of several centimeters (3 to 40 cm) along a ~20 km long fault zone extending from the Kupa river (in the northwest) to the Petrinjčica river (in the southeast). Optical image correlation based on WorldView satellite images has been used to document the first-order near-field rupture signal. The pre-event image was acquired on 7th December 2017, and the post-event image on 15th January 2021. The first results indicate a right-lateral displacement of ≈75 cm with a small (6 earthquakes. Since the fault extends farther NW and SE, from the Vukomeričke Gorice hills to Mount Kozara (Bosnia), for a total length of about 100 km, it could generate potentially larger events. It is also noteworthy that the 2020 Petrinja event occurred only 9 months after the Zagreb March 2020 (Mw 5.3) earthquake. This event occurred on an ENE-WSW-trending thrust fault, broadly orthogonal to the right-lateral Petrinja-Pokupsko fault system, ~45 km north of Petrinja, and raises the prospect of potential interplay between strike-slip and thrust faults in moderate strain-rate intra-plate settings. To address this problem, future works will aim at constraining the geometry of this fault network and its seismogenic potential. more...

The 29 December 2020, Mw 6.4 Petrinja earthquake nucleated at a depth of ~10 km in the Sisak-Moslavina County in northern Croatia, ~6 km WSW of the Petrinja town. Focal mechanisms, aftershocks distribution, and preliminary Sentinel-1 InSAR interferogram suggest that the NW-SE right-lateral strike-slip Pokupsko-Petrinja fault was the source of this event.The Croatian Geological Survey, joined by a European team of earthquake geologists from France, Slovenia and Italy, performed a prompt systematic survey of the area to map the surface effects of the earthquake. The field survey was guided by geological maps, preliminary morphotectonic mapping based on 1:5,000 topographical maps and InSAR interferogram. Locally, field mapping was aided by drone survey.We mapped unambiguous evidence of surface faulting at several sites between Župić to the NW and Hrastovica to the SE, in the central part of the Pokupsko-Petrinja fault, for a total length of ~6.5 km. This is probably a minimum length since several portions of the fault have not been explored yet, and in part crossing forbidden uncleared minefields. Surface faulting was observed on anthropic features (roads, walls) and on Quaternary sediments (soft colluvium and alluvium) and Miocene bedrock (calcarenites). The observed ruptures strike mostly NW-SE, with evidences of strike-slip right-lateral displacement and zones of extension (opening) or contraction (small pressure ridges, moletracks) atlocal bends of the rupture trace. Those ruptures are interpreted as evidences of coseismic surface faulting (primary effects) as they affect the morphology independently from the slope direction. Ground failures due to gravitational sliding and liquefaction occurrences were also observed, mapped and interpreted as secondary effects (see Amoroso et al., and Vukovski et al., this session). SE of Križ, the rupture broke a water pipeline with a right-lateral offset of several centimetres. Measured right-lateral net displacement varies from a few centimetres up to ~35 cm. A portion of the maximum measured displacement could be due to afterlisp, as it was mapped several days after the main shock. Hybrid surface ruptures (shear plus opening and liquefaction), striking SW-NE, with cm-size left-lateral strike-slip offsets were mapped on the northern side of the Petrinja town, ~3 km NE of the main fault.Overall, the rupture zone appears discontinuous. Several factors might be inferred to explain this pattern such as incomplete mapping of the rupture, inherited structural discontinuities within the Pokupsko-Petrinja fault system, or specific mechanical properties of the Neogene-Quaternary strata more...

On December 29th, 2020, a strong Mw 6.4 earthquake hit central Croatia. The epicenter was located approximately 3 km southwest of Petrinja, and the intensity was estimated to VIII-IX EMS. The earthquake led to significant environmental effects related to earthquake magnitude, focal depth, and geological and geotechnical properties of the affected area.The Croatian Geological Survey (HGI-CGS) conducted extensive geological and geodetic surveys starting a few hours following the main shock to measure the earthquake’s effects,including those on infrastructures. Ten geologists from the Department of Geology carried out surveys from Decmber 31st, 2020 to January 7th, 2021 along the potential seismogenic source (inferred from geological maps and InSAR data) and in the wider epicentral area that suffered significant damage (e.g., Glina and Sisak).During a second phase, researchers from the University of Zagreb (PMF UniZG), Slovenia (GeoZS), Italy (INGV, ISPRA, U. Chieti) and France (CEREGE, IRSN) were mobilized to complete the observations. The collaboration with these geologists allowed to deepen the investigations and to bring further detail to quantify the effects. The surveys were then compiled based on data formats used by the European Community, namely those of the INGV EMERGEO team (Villani et al., 2017; for environmental effects including surface ruptures and liquefaction) and those of the SURE group (Baize et al., 2019 for surface ruptures).These observations revealed that the earthquake triggered a discontinuous, few km-long surface rupture with a maximum displacement of about 20 cm, which is consistent with the lower average of observations made on similar events (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). Liquefaction spread over several tens of square kilometers mostly in river plains, the most distant being about 20 km from the epicenter (to be confirmed!). Other observed effects include lateral spreading, landslides, groundwater regime changes, rockfalls, and various infrastructure damage.The compilation of the acquired dataset into a unified database, consistent with database of other historical and recent events, is essential for establishing reliable empirical relations between geological effects and physical characteristics of earthquakes (magnitude, depth). This forms the basis for seismic hazard assessments, whether for “surface rupture”, “liquefaction”, or “ground-shaking” potential. more...

Acceso electrónico sólo desde el IGME, Landslides are one of the most widespread geohazards in Europe, producing significant social and economic impacts. Rapid population growth in urban areas throughout many countries in Europe and extreme climatic scenarios can considerably increase landslide risk in the near future. Variability exists between European countries in both the statutory treatment of landslide risk and the use of official assessment guidelines. This suggests that a European Landslides Directive that provides a common legal framework for dealing with landslides is necessary. With this long-term goal in mind, this work analyzes the landslide databases from the Geological Surveys of Europe focusing on their interoperability and completeness. The same landslide classification could be used for the 849,543 landslide records from the Geological Surveys, from which 36% are slides, 10% are falls, 20% are flows, 11% are complex slides, and 24% either remain unclassified or correspond to another typology. Most of them are mapped with the same symbol at a scale of 1:25,000 or greater, providing the necessary information to elaborate European-scale susceptibility maps for each landslide type. A landslide density map was produced for the available records from the Geological Surveys (LANDEN map) showing, for the first time, 210,544 km2 landslide-prone areas and 23,681 administrative areas where the Geological Surveys from Europe have recorded landslides. The comparison of this map with the European landslide susceptibility map (ELSUS 1000 v1) is successful for most of the territory (69.7%) showing certain variability between countries. This comparison also permitted the identification of 0.98 Mkm2 (28.9%) of landslide-susceptible areas without records from the Geological Surveys, which have been used to evaluate the landslide database completeness. The estimated completeness of the landslide databases (LDBs) from the Geological Surveys is 17%, varying between 1 and 55%. This variability is due to the different landslide strategies adopted by each country. In some of them, landslide mapping is systematic; others only record damaging landslides, whereas in others, landslide maps are only available for certain regions or local areas. Moreover, in most of the countries, LDBs from the Geological Surveys co-exist with others owned by a variety of public institutions producing LDBs at variable scales and formats. Hence, a greater coordination effort should be made by all the institutions working in landslide mapping to increase data integration and harmonization., Earth Observation and Geohazards Expert Group (EOEG), EuroGeoSurveys, the Geological Surveys of Europe, Bélgica, Geohazards InSAR Laboratory and Modeling Group, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, España, Risk and Prevention Division, Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières, Francia, Engineering Geology Department, Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, Grecia, GeoHazard team, Geological Institute of Romania, Rumanía, Geological Survey of Slovenia, Eslovenia, Croatian Geological Survey, Croacia, Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Geological Survey of Italy, Italia, Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Suiza, Geological Survey of Austria, Austria, Polish Geological Institute, National Research Institute, Polonia, Geological Survey of Ireland, Irlanda, Czech Geological Survey, República Checa, Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Alemania, Geological Survey of Norway, Noruega, Cyprus Geological Survey, Chipre, Geological Survey of Sweden, Suecia, Institut Cartogràfic i Geològic de Catalunya, España, British Geological Survey, Reino Unido, Geological Survey of Slovakia, Eslovaquia, Geological Survey of Lithuania, Lituania, Federalni zavod za geologiju, Bosnia y Herzegovina, Geological Survey of Estonia, Estonia, Laboratório Nacional de Energia e Geologia, Portugal, Geological Survey of Hungary, Hungría, Norwegian Water and energy Directorate of Norway, Noruega more...