Geology topics

L. Malagnini

Publications and source records attributed to L. Malagnini.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

An exploration of the relative influence of physical models for Omori’s law

Omori’s law states that the rate of aftershocks decays as a function of inverse time. There are multiple physical explanations that we reduce into a nonlinear mixed effects relation of three terms: (1) a Rate/State expression that can account for static/dynamic and viscoelastic triggering caused directly by the mainshock, (2) a fluid diffusion triggering term, and (3) a randomized secondary triggering (cascade) term. We fit free physical-model parameters to an observed aftershock sequence through two nonlinear regression methods to find the relative contributions of physics-based models in an observed aftershock sequence. Results from both methods show that Rate/State models overpredict aftershock rates by ∼0–30%. Secondary aftershocks cause a net negative contribution (seismicity rate reduction that corrects overprediction by other terms) ranging between ∼0 and 30%. All regression solutions yield negative secondary triggering contributions without being guided to do so. A physical explanation for this is that aftershock occurrence relieves stress from the crust, ultimately causing the sequence to extinguish itself. Fluid diffusion triggering contributions range from ∼0 to 20%. Diffusion processes are observed to be shorter in time than the full duration of an aftershock sequence and they are also spatially limited, diminishing their influence. Our results apply to an aftershock decay curve from the 2016 Central Apennines earthquake sequence, meaning that our specific results may not be general. Our primary conclusion is that any one physical model cannot alone fit the observed sequence as well as the combination of three we investigated.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗

USGS2025

Do Graviquakes exist?

The “Graviquake” model, proposed in 2015 as an alternative to the elastic dislocation model, posits that normal faults are passive features dominated by coseismic gravitational collapse into a dilated crustal wedge, and that normal faulting is fundamentally distinct from strike‐slip and reverse faulting. Developed using finite‐element modeling before the 2016 central Apennines earthquake sequence, the model was revamped based on interpreted Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data from these events and used as evidence for a gravitational collapse episode. However, this interpretation relies on miscalculated elevation changes and is not corroborated by independent geophysical and seismological observations. Our analysis exposes fundamental flaws in the Graviquake model. By assuming that faults are passive players, it underrepresents the dynamic role of strain accumulation and release in rocks adjacent to faults. The hypothesized rapid expulsion of overpressurized fluids appears inconsistent with observed diffusion rates and lacks supporting seismological evidence. Part of the uplifted–subsided volume imbalance is likely an artifact arising from data processing, and in part is a transient effect due to the delayed response of the lower crust. Moment tensor analyses detect no isotropic components indicative of gravitational collapse, and observed ground motion and stress‐drop levels remain fully consistent with elastic dislocation theory. In addition, finite‐element modeling of normal faulting replicates observed surface deformation without invoking a collapsing wedge. The Graviquake model proposes a representation of normal‐faulting mechanics that differs significantly from established models and observations. Gravity does play a role in normal faulting, but the elastic dislocation theory remains the definitive framework of fault mechanics. Reinterpreting the 2016 earthquakes as a cascade of gravitational episodes, based on incorrect data processing and modeling, fails to substantiate the Graviquake hypothesis. Persistence in advocating this model could mislead seismic hazard assessment and undermine our understanding of normal faulting.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2009

Uncertainty analysis for seismic hazard in Northern and Central Italy

In this study we examine uncertainty and parametric sensitivity of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and 1-Hz Spectral Acceleration (1-Hz SA) in probabilistic seismic hazard maps (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) of Northern and Central Italy. The uncertainty in hazard is estimated using a Monte Carlo approach to randomly sample a logic tree that has three input-variables branch points representing alternative values for b-value, maximum magnitude (Mmax) and attenuation relationships. Uncertainty is expressed in terms of 95% confidence band and Coefficient Of Variation (COV). The overall variability of ground motions and their sensitivity to each parameter of the logic tree are investigated. The largest values of the overall 95% confidence band are around 0.15 g for PGA in the Friuli and Northern Apennines regions and around 0.35 g for 1-Hz SA in the Central Apennines. The sensitivity analysis shows that the largest contributor to seismic hazard variability is uncertainty in the choice of ground-motion attenuation relationships, especially in the Friuli Region (???0.10 g) for PGA and in the Friuli and Central Apennines regions (???0.15 g) for 1-Hz SA. This is followed by the variability of the b-value: its main contribution is evident in the Friuli and Central Apennines regions for both 1-Hz SA (???0.15 g) and PGA (???0.10 g). We observe that the contribution of Mmax to seismic hazard variability is negligible, at least for 10% exceedance in 50-years hazard. The overall COV map for PGA shows that the uncertainty in the hazard is larger in the Friuli and Northern Apennine regions, around 20-30%, than the Central Apennines and Northwestern Italy, around 10-20%. The overall uncertainty is larger for the 1-Hz SA map and reaches 50-60% in the Central Apennines and Western Alps.

Annals of Geophysics↗

USGS2009

Effect of time dependence on probabilistic seismic-hazard maps and deaggregation for the central Apennines, Italy

We produce probabilistic seismic-hazard assessments for the central Apennines, Italy, using time-dependent models that are characterized using a Brownian passage time recurrence model. Using aperiodicity parameters, ?? of 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7, we examine the sensitivity of the probabilistic ground motion and its deaggregation to these parameters. For the seismic source model we incorporate both smoothed historical seismicity over the area and geological information on faults. We use the maximum magnitude model for the fault sources together with a uniform probability of rupture along the fault (floating fault model) to model fictitious faults to account for earthquakes that cannot be correlated with known geologic structural segmentation.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗