1 Technologies and new approaches used by the INGV EMERGEO Working Group for real time data sourcing and processing during the Emilia Romagna (Northern Italy) 2012 earthquake sequence. EMERGEO Working Group* *Alessio Giuliana 1, Alfonsi Laura 2, Brunori Carlo Alberto 3, Burrato Pierfrancesco 4, Casula Giuseppe 5, Cinti Francesca Romana 4, Civico Riccardo 4, Colini Laura 3, Cucci Luigi 4, De Martini Paolo Marco 4, Falcucci Emanuela 4, Galadini Fabrizio 4, Gaudiosi Germana 1, Gori Stefano 4, Mariucci Maria Teresa 4, Montone Paola 4, Moro Marco 3, Nappi Rosa 1, Nardi Anna 3, Nave Rosa 1, Pantosti Daniela 4, Patera Antonio 4, Pesci Arianna 5, Pignone Maurizio 3, Pinzi Stefania 4, Pucci Stefano 4, Vannoli Paola 4, Venuti Alessandra 2, Villani Fabio 4. 1 INGV, Sezione Osservatorio Vesuviano, Via Diocleziano 328, Napoli, Italy 2 INGV, Sezione di Geomagnetismo, Aeronomia e Geofisica Ambientale, Via Vigna Murata 605, Roma, Italy 3 INGV, Sezione Centro Nazionale Terremoti, Via Vigna Murata 605, Roma, Italy 4 INGV, Sezione di Sismologia e Tettonofisica, Via Vigna Murata 605, Roma, Italy 5 INGV, Sezione di Bologna, Via Donato Creti 12, Bologna, Italy Submitted to Annals of Geophysics 19 th July 2012 CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Maria Teresa Mariucci INGV Via di Vigna Murata 605 Roma IT Ph Fax
2 Technologies and new approaches used by the INGV EMERGEO Working Group for real time data sourcing and processing during the Emilia Romagna (Northern Italy) 2012 earthquake sequence. EMERGEO Working Group* *Alessio Giuliana, Alfonsi Laura, Brunori Carlo Alberto, Burrato Pierfrancesco, Casula Giuseppe, Cinti Francesca Romana, Civico Riccardo, Colini Laura, Cucci Luigi, De Martini Paolo Marco, Falcucci Emanuela, Galadini Fabrizio, Gaudiosi Germana, Gori Stefano, Mariucci Maria Teresa, Montone Paola, Moro Marco, Nappi Rosa, Nardi Anna, Nave Rosa, Pantosti Daniela, Patera Antonio, Pesci Arianna, Pignone Maurizio, Pinzi Stefania, Pucci Stefano, Vannoli Paola, Venuti Alessandra, Villani Fabio. 1. Introduction On May a Ml 5.9 seismic event hit the Emilia Po Plain triggering an intense earthquake activity along a broad area of the Plain between the Modena, Ferrara, Rovigo and Mantova provinces (Fig. 1). Nine days later, on May a Ml 5.8 event occurred roughly 10 km to the SW of the first main shock; these events caused widespread damage and 26 victims. The aftershock area extended for more than 50 km, elongated in WNW-ESE direction, including five major aftershocks with 5.1 Ml 5.3 and more than two thousands of minor events (Fig. 1). In general, the seismic sequence was confined in the upper 10 km of the crust; minor seismicity with depths ranging from 10 to 30 km extended towards the southern sector of the epicentral area (ISIDe, The thrust faulting focal mechanisms of the main shocks and strongest aftershocks show fault planes E-W, ENE-WSW, and WNW-ESE oriented (QRCMT, Quick Regional Moment Tensors, compatible with the approximately N-S direction of compression in the area s (Montone et al., 2012). The extensive seismic reflection data used for oil exploration (Pieri and Groppi, 1981; Picotti and Pazzaglia, 2008; Fantoni and Franciosi, 2010) allowed the reconstruction of the main tectonic elements of the area. The active Apennine thrust fronts, buried under the Po Plain Plio-Quaternary sediments, locally consist of three N-verging arcs (Ferrarese et al., 1998; Benedetti et al., 2000;
3 Castiglioni and Pellegrini, 2001). The most external structures, the active Ferrara and Mirandola thrusts and folds (Bigi et al., 1992) are responsible for the Emilia Romagna 2012 earthquake sequence. Historical and instrumental earthquakes (e.g. Boschi et al., 2000; Rovida et al., 2011), drainage anomalies controlled by buried anticlines, active compression, and a shortening rate of about <1 mm/a (Toscani et al., 2009), testify the Quaternary thrusts activity (DISS Working Group, 2010). In detail, the recent activity of the Ferrara and Mirandola thrusts (DISS Working Group, 2010), is responsible for drainage diversions of the Po, Secchia, Panaro and Reno rivers (Burrato et al., 2003). Just after the 20 th May seismic event, the EMERGEO Working Group was active in surveying the epicentral area searching for coseismic geological effects. The work in the field, organized according to EMERGEO procedures (http://emergeo.ingv.it/it/ /887-protocollooperativo.html/), lasted one month, with about thirty researchers and technicians of the INGV alternatively involved in the survey. At the same time, a laboratory-working group gathered, organized and interpreted the records, processing them in the EMERGEO Information System (sie), based on a GIS environment. Ground and aerial surveys were coupled with crowdsourcing data initiatives such as Internet, social networks, and information from residents. The most common coseismic effects surveyed by the EMERGEO teams are: 1) liquefactions related to overpressure of aquifers hosted in buried and confined sand layers (e.g. San Felice sul Panaro, San Carlo, Sant Agostino, and Bondeno), occurring through several aligned vents forming coalescent flat cones (Fig. 1a); 2) extensional fractures with small vertical throws, apparently organized in an en-echelon pattern, observed mainly in the eastern sector and in the central area (Fig. 1b); 3) liquefactions directly associable to fractures (e.g. Bondeno and San Carlo) where huge amounts of fine sand were ejected from fractures tens of meters long (Fig. 1c). Innovative tools employed for data gathering, processing and delivery during the EMERGEO survey are: -development of the EMERGEO Information System (sie), turning unprocessed data into useful information; -setting up of a webgis; -use of social networks for info and data delivery; - experimental Internet and inhabitants data sourcing accompanying the traditional survey methods
4 (field and aerial survey). The whole architecture allowed the collection and processing of about 2400 observation points in less than a month. The detailed analyses of this data set will be presented in another paper (EMERGEO Working Group, submitted). 2. Data: acquisition and methods EMERGEO teams through different approaches collected geological coseismic surface effects: (i) field and aerial survey; (ii) Internet and personal communications crowdsourcing (subsequently validated by field survey). A number of 2156 observations were gathered from field and aerial surveys alone (helicopter flights on 23rd and 30th May, kindly made possible by the Corpo Forestale dello Stato, and a powered hang-glider trike flight on 8th June 2012). 63% of the total data turned out into reliable records concerning geologic coseismic surface effects. The data were then stored in a geodatabase and analysed using geographical information system (GIS) tools. Field surveys were mainly aimed at the definition of typology, structural and morphological significance of observed phenomena. Locations of geological observations and photographs were registered using a pre-defined form and directly stored as georeferenced data. Smartphones, allowing the collection and storage of field data in real-time, were employed and utilised also for rapid data sharing among field teams. Only through field survey, 402 observations were gathered, analysed and stored in a week and a total of 662 data points were reported in a month (Fig. 2a). Aerial surveys were effective in integrating the dataset collected in the field, by shooting approximately 1500 georeferenced photographs and recording more than 3 hours of video. The low-altitude flights (~ m AGL) allowed investigating the whole area struck by the seismic sequence, supporting field survey planning, and leading the identification of further features. This data set was analysed and processed, features shown in each image were characterised and positioned on the GIS. These results, available two or three days after each flight, were particularly useful for this specific seismic sequence affecting a vast plain area where good sites for panoramic views over large fields are almost absent (Fig. 2a). For the first time we used an Internet based data sourcing and nine days after the main shock the
5 experimental procedure was active, to receive information on geologic earthquake effects by people. An Internet form was specifically designed to gather information on surface effects directly associated to the earthquake (available at: The form provides a simplified list of possible geological features to be flagged and editable fields for other relevant information. A specific part of the form is related to the information useful to locate the phenomena (i.e. street, city, and or geographical coordinates). The entire system, based on a open source relational database management system, can be queried through a graphic interface. The most reliable information have been selected and transmitted daily to field teams in the epicentral area in order to be verified. The response was remarkable (more than 200 compiled forms), testifying curiosity toward an Internet based poll system (Fig. 2a). Information received directly by residents constitutes another important element concurring to the data flow implementation. Communication between EMERGEO teams and people was particularly intense and useful during the field survey days (Fig. 2a). 3. EMERGEO Information System (sie) The geodatabase, the procedures, GIS tools and people represent the core of the EMERGEO Information System (Fig. 2b). The system acts transforming unprocessed data into information ready to use for the emergency management and leading to the production of preliminary and final reports and maps (Burrough, 1986; Maguire, 1991; Brunori et al., 2007). The input data in the sie are grouped in two main categories: (i) existing base maps (e.g. geographic, geological data; DEM) and other available dataset (e.g. INGV Kharita - Geoserver portal Project; CSI Castello et al., 2006; Bollettino Sismico Italiano; Italian Seismic Instrumental and parametric Database ISIDe; CPTI11 Rovida et al., 2011; DISS Working Group, 2010); (ii) geologic coseismic surface effects collected during the post-earthquake survey by the EMERGEO teams. The whole data set is organized in multilayers georeferenced (Lat/Long WGS84) information in GIS environment (Fig. 2c). The acquired data flows in a webgis specifically created for the dissemination of original geo-
6 information (Fig. 2b). During the emergency phase, the sie system, was necessary for both fixing the knowledge of the phenomena and its temporal and spatial evolution, and planning the field survey and the fly over in progress (Fig. 2b). The whole sie structure acts as a dynamic system, filtering the data through procedures in the database and sending back real-time information to field operators. All the process was constantly implemented during the emergency. 4. Data Dissemination Two experimental procedures were employed during the Emilia 2012 seismic emergency to perform data dissemination devoted to differently target groups (generic public, researchers, emergency operators, policy makers). The main instrument was set up implementing an existing platform for image and data sharing (Pignone and Moschillo, 2011; Pignone et al., 2012), and it is constituted by a webgis application developed on the ESRI ArcGIS Online platform (http://www.arcgis.com/). This system allows a complete parallel representation of the information gathered by the EMERGEO Working Group and the principal databases employed (Fig. 2c). It gives access to geographic content shared and registered by ESRI and GIS users around the world (http://www.esriitalia.it/emergeo/). For the first time all the EMERGEO data collected and processed by the sie were immediately available to potential users through an external interface (Fig. 2c, Fig. 3). A further procedure was set up, within the framework of the Flickr social network, as a dedicated EMERGEO space, diffusing photographs of the earthquake geological effects. Georeferenced pictures, coming from field or aerial survey, are detailed with full description of the phenomena. These free-access images, available at represent a valid communication tool among the EMERGEO researchers and the generic public (Fig. 3). 5. Discussion The totality of observations collected composes a data set of about 2400 points (i.e. field and aerial surveys, personal communications and Internet data sourcing). The 59% of these data set merged
7 into reliable information, useful for other researches. Figures 4a-b illustrate the weight of each information source: field and aerial-based surveys are, as expected, the most reliable information sources. Fractures associated to liquefaction and single liquefaction phenomena constitute the majority of the data, while fractures without sand emission are less represented (Fig. 4c). Figure 4d-e shows the contribution of each method in identifying specific features (i.e. fractures and liquefaction as an example). Nevertheless, considering the weight of each survey tool with respect of its effectiveness a quite different scenario arises (Fig. 4f). In particular, personal communications, given by the inhabitants, contribute with a 37% of the whole data set and a specific effective index (s.e.i) of 93%. This index is obtained scaling the number of corrected information versus the number of total information in percentage. Field survey, as expected, is still the more reliable and immediately employable data (39% of contribution to the whole data set, s.e.i. of 100%). The aerial survey with 19% of whole data contributions gets 47% for the specific effective index. Internet crowdsourcing result is particularly interesting: in fact, in spite of the 5% of contribution gains an effective index of about 13%. In conclusion, Internet and general public information data sourcing are promising tools needing further development through dedicated projects involving specific data dissemination efforts. 6. Conclusions -Field and aerial surveys produced a wide data set of information allowing the reconstruction of the coseismic effects characterizing the Emilia 2012 sequence. -A self-consistent system for data gathering, processing and delivery was set up, producing the transformation of unprocessed data into information ready to use for the emergency management, research and data diffusion (sie). -In this seismic sequence the EMERGEO Working Group dedicated efforts in developing alternative methods for collecting information through citizen engagement. This data coupling, although experimental, furnished encouraging results in terms of involvement of the public, revealing at the same time a poor knowledge of the specific earthquake phenomenon.
8 -Use of social networks and Internet sourcing to gather valid earthquake-related information was tentative and needs future developments by means of specific projects. The dissemination effort can improve the interaction among geologists/seismologists and society at large, and increase the level of confidence of the population about the service provided to the society before during and after a seismic crisis. Acknowledgements The Corpo Forestale dello Stato is acknowledged for the flights over the seismic area, ESRI Italia for the webgis facilities and last but not least the residents directly affected by the seismic sequence that actively collaborated in spite of the uneasy living conditions. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers. References Benedetti, L., P. Tapponier, G.C.P. King, B. Meyer and I. Manighetti (2000). Growth folding and active thrusting in the Montello region, Veneto, Northern Italy, J. Geophys.Res., 105(B1), Bigi, G., D. Cosentino, M. Parlotto, R. Sartori and P. Scandone (1992). Structural model of Italy and gravitymap, in Quaderni della Ricerca Scientifica, 114, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - CNR, Rome. Bollettino Sismico Italiano, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia: Boschi, E., E. Guidoboni, G Ferrari, D. Mariotti, G. Valensise and P. Gasperini (2000). Catalogue of Strong Italian Earthquakes, 461 b.c to 1997, Ann. Geofis., 43, , with database on CD- ROM. Brunori, C.A., G. Siletto, A. Piccin, F. Berra and E. Mozzi (2007). Verso un Sistema Informativo Geologico: l applicativo CARGeo per la banca dati Geologica della Regione Lombardia, Rend. Soc. Geol. It., 4, Nuova Serie, Burrato, P., F. Ciucci and G. Valensise (2003). An inventory of river anomalies in the Po Plain, Northern Italy: evidence for active blind thrust faulting, Ann. Geophys., 46, 5, Burrough, P.A. (1986). Principles of geographical information systems for land resource assessment, Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K, 194 pp. Castello, B., G. Selvaggi, C. Chiarabba and A. Amato (2006). CSI Catalogo della sismicità italiana , versione 1.1. INGV-CNT, Roma, Castiglioni, G.B. and G.B. Pellegrini (Eds.) (2001). Note illustrative della Carta Geomorfologica della Pianura Padana, Geogr. Fis. Din. Quat., Suppl. to IV, 207 pp.
9 DISS Working Group (2010). Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), Version 3.1.1: A compilation of potential sources for earthquakes larger than M 5.5 in Italy and surrounding areas. INGV Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia All rights reserved. EMERGEO Working Group (2012). Coseismic geological effects associated with the Emilia earthquake sequence of May-June 2012 (Northern Italy), Natural Hazards and Earth Science Systems, submitted. Fantoni, R. and R. Franciosi (2010). Tectono-sedimentary setting of the Po Plain and Adriatic foreland, Rend.Fis. Acc. Lincei, 21, (Suppl. 1): S197 S209, doi: /s Ferrarese, F., U. Sauro and C. Tonello (1998). The Montello Plateau, karst evolution of an alpine neotectonicmorphostructure, Z. Geomorph. N. F., 109 (Suppl.-Bd.), ISIDe Working Group (INGV, 2010). Italian Seismological Instrumental and parametric database: Kharita-Geoserver Portal Maguire, D.J. (1991). An overview and definition of GIS, in Geographical information systems: principles and applications D.J. Maguire, M.F. Goodchild, and D. Rhind (Eds.)., John Wiley&Sons, Inc., New York, Montone, P., M.T. Mariucci and S. Pierdominici (2012). The Italian present-day stress map, Geophys. Journ. Int., 189, 2, , doi: /j X x. Picotti, V. and F.J. Pazzaglia (2008). A new active tectonic model for the construction of the Northern Apennines mountain front near Bologna (Italy), J. Geophys. Res., 113, B08412, doi: /2007jb Pieri, M. and G. Groppi (1981). Subsurface geological structure of the Po Plain, Italy, Pubbl.414, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, CNR, Agip, Progetto Finalizzato Geodinamica, Rome, 1981, 23 pp. Pignone, M., R. Moschillo and R. Cogliano (2012). Geodatabase e report di sismicità, Rendiconti Online Soc. Geol. It.,19, Pignone, M. and R. Moschillo (2011). GEOSIS: dall Earthquake Report al webgis, Quaderni di Geofisica, 94, ISSN: QRCMT, Quick Regional Moment Tensors, Rovida, A., Camassi, R., P. Gasperini and M. Stucchi (Eds.) (2011). CPTI11, the 2011 version of the Parametric Catalogue of Italian Earthquakes, Milano, Bologna, Toscani, G., Burrato, P., Di Bucci, D., S. Seno and G. Valensise (2009). Plio-Quaternary tectonic evolution of the Northern Apennines thrust fronts along the Bologna-Ferrara section (Po Plain,
10 Italy), based on geological observations and analogue modeling: seismotectonic implications, Ital. J. Geosci. (Boll. Soc. Geol. It.), 128, 2 (2009),
11 Figure Captions Figure 1 - Seismic sequence in the Emilia Po Plain from 19 th May to 19 th June 2012 (ISIDe, In a month more than 2000 seismic events occurred, seven with Ml 5.0 (red stars). Blue pinpoints locate the observation records made by the EMERGEO Working Group. In the insets pictures of coseismic geological effects: a) coalescent cones; b) fracture; c) liquefaction associated with fracture. Figure 2 - a) Graph illustrating the information flow from the different investigation tools employed (i.e. number of observations, log scale, vs. time). Time scale starts on 20 th May, day of the main shock of the Emilia 2012 sequence (Ml=5.9); b) The EMERGEO Information System (sie): chart illustrating the data flux and procedures adopted for analysis, storage and output; c) The input data are constructed as sets of layers, each one containing information on one type of data. In detail, the layers shown include information on: 1) the seismic sequence (ISIDe, 2) the DInSAR data (http://ingvterremoti.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/terremoto-in-pianura-padanaemiliana-spostamento-del-suolo-dovuto-al-terremoto-del visto-dal-satellite-italianocosmo-skymed/); 3) the historical seismicity (Rovida et al., 2011); 4) the seismogenic sources (DISS Working Group, 2010); 5) the geological data (Bigi et al., 1992); 6) Digital Elevation Model. Figure 3 - Screen shot depicting a typical layer of the webgis interface and related information accessible at Figure 4 - Schematic representation of: a) percentage of raw data derived from the different investigating tools; b) percentage of effective data produced by each investigating tool; c) partitioning of the total data in specific surveyed coseismic effects; d/e) Contribution of each specific investigating tool in surveying fractures and liquefactions phenomena; f) representation of the weighted effectiveness of each single investigating tool once the group of data is normalised with respect to the specific effectiveness (i.e. number of robust data versus total number of data).
12 a b c Figure 1
13 Thematic 20 May Aerial survey Maps Data Sets Personal communications Field survey Data Acquisition Internet Sourcing Seismic sequence Geodatabase Data Storage DInSAR data GIS TOOLS sie CORE Data Elaboration RULES INGV WEB GIS continuously updated Historical seismicity Seismogenic sources Georeferenced Information Reports - Maps Geological data 1 June 22 June personal communications field survey air survey internet crowdsourcing INGV Research Civil Protection dedicated reports daily INGV Internet report weekly DEM a) b) c) Figure 2
14 Figure 3
15 Internet crowdsourcing 9% Field survey 28% 1% Personal Communication Aerial survey 63% Internet crowdsourcing 2% Field survey 47% 1% Personal Communication Aerial survey 50% Fractures liquefaction 56% Fractures 8% Liquefaction 36% a) Raw data b) Analysed data c) Total resolved features Aerial survey 3% 2% 1% 2% Personal Communication 24% 72% Field survey Aerial survey 53% Field survey d) Fractures e) Liquefactions f) Weighted effectiveness 45% 37% 5% Field survey 39% Aerial survey 19% Figure 4