Andrew Wade, senior reporter
The 6.2 magnitude earthquake that devastated parts of central Italy on Wednesday is the eighth major quake to hit the country in the past 40 years. Located near the meeting point of the Eurasian and African plates, the region has long been known as a seismic hotspot. Indeed, it was only in 2009 that over 300 people lost their lives in the nearby L’Aquila earthquake. As I write, the death toll from this quake stands at 268, and will inevitably continue to rise as rescue workers sift through the destruction and the region is rocked by strong aftershocks.
Similarities with the L’Aquila disaster are striking. Just an hour’s drive south of Amatrice (the worst hit town, where at least 200 people are known to have died so far), the L’Aquila quake measured 6.3. The Richter Scale is base-10 logarithmic, making the L’Aquila quake twice as strong as the 6.2 that hit this week. Both quakes struck at a shallow depth of around 10km beneath the surface, contributing to the intensity of the vibrations. But questions must be asked about the extent of the damage, as the lessons of history appear to go unheeded.
It’s been widely reported that experts estimate 70 per cent of Italy’s buildings are not built to seismic standards. In a first-world country prone to earthquakes, that figure is simply unacceptable. Naturally, in 12th century towns there will always be historical buildings not built to today’s standards, and where it can be difficult to retrospectively put mitigating measures in place. What is difficult to understand is why modern buildings are not built to modern standards.
“Hospitals, police stations, schools and barracks in Amatrice and Accumuli completely collapsed during the earthquake – with the exception of a gym that is now being used to house displaced residents,” said Prof Giulio Di Toro, Geology Chair at Manchester University’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, who was conducting research in central Italy this week when the earthquake struck.
“The village of Norcia, which was rebuilt adhering to the construction codes after the 1979 earthquake (5.8 magnitude, five casualties), suffered little damage and no casualties despite being located in the epicentral area.”
Reports from Amatrice indicate that investigators are examining the town’s Romolo Capranica school. The building was restored in 2012 using funds provided in the aftermath of the L’Aquila quake, but on Wednesday it almost completely collapsed. The town’s clock tower, built in the 13th century, remained standing.
“In a country where in the past 40 years there have been at least eight devastating earthquakes … the only lesson we have learned is how to save lives after the fact,” columnist Sergio Rizzo wrote in Thursday’s Corriere della Sera, one of Italy’s leading newspapers. “We are far, far behind in the other lessons.”
Italy is a proud nation with a fabled history, and what can often be an admirable streak of stubbornness. But this week’s tragic events are a wake-up call, and the lessons from L’Aquila have clearly not been learned. The Italian government must now look at the systems other countries have put in place to protect their citizens from the dangers of earthquakes.
Japan is, of course, a leader in this regard, as indeed it must be. Lying in one of the most seismically active regions in the world, the country has seen its fair share of devastation from earthquakes and tsunamis. The 9.0 quake that struck off the coast in 2011 caused huge tremors across the country, but the vast majority of casualties were caused by the resulting tsunami rather than the quake itself. In Japan, building codes are strict, citizens are prepared for the inevitable, and countless lives are saved when catastrophe does strike. It’s time for Italy to follow suit.
The Latin mentality is to do things and the last moment and prevention after the disaster. Last year I saw in a Modena cheese factory the steel structure bins to age and store cheese. In their last earthquake they had huge losses. The issue where this private and government structure are going to get the money to reinforce them and how to preserve the history of the building. this will not be the last earthquake disaster in the area and the history will repeated again and again with a large toll in human life.
Richter’s scale was superseded in 1970 by the moment magnitude scale (MMS), The 2 scales’ are approximately equivalent, up to a point, but Richter is meaningless beyond magnitude 8. While the press keep mis-reporting magnitudes as Richter values, an engineering publication really should know better.
Italian citizens in vulnerable regions have long deserved better of their ebgineers, builders and statutory bodies, so that multiple deaths under many tons of masonry are no longer the inevitable consequence of local seismicity
I add thoughts and prayers of those so sadly distressed by this episode. My concerns are as always that, whilst this is a natural disaster, the photographs look so like those presently and recently portrayed of Syria et al and the continued man-made destruction there, I wonder whether the admonishment of Italy to have failed to act following previous earthquakes is justified. Physician, heal Thyself? Isn’t there something about moats and beams in other texts as well?
L’Aquila was not twice as strong:-
Because of the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude; in terms of energy, each whole number increase corresponds to an increase of about 31.6 times the amount of energy released, and each increase of 0.2 corresponds to a doubling of the energy released.
Really good article on a topic that engineers need to be aware of for when they have to work in earthquake regions. My own limited experience is allowing for Richter 2 level, mainly in ensuring structural stability and safety: no idea how to allow for Richter 8+ (or the MMS scale mentioned by Carl above).
At least 30 years ago or more, a structurally stiff polypropylene geogrid was demonstrated on a TV science programme as a prophylactic against movement induced building collapse, which is the main cause of death in earthquakes. 2 application demonstrations showed promise: the first, in new buildings, used continuously laid geogrid between and across building joints. The second could be laid vertically in sheet form under the stucco which is very widely used on older buildings in Italy. Both of these were invisible on the finished building, both successfully delayed collapse and falling building components until the buildings could be evacuated. I believe the geogrid was then made by the Tensar Company. I heard that the subsequent development work was passed by them to an Engineering University Department in Italy for further research but, as far as I know, this has not been developed further. Developments like this could prove very beneficial and its cost would surely be less than the appalling cost of such tragedies as Aquila and Matrice.
But you are asking a University and its staff to get involved in something which has a finite ‘time-scale’ and lead-line for implementation: to avoid a future problem. I don’t know what the Italian for, Pigs, wings, fly and might are: but all would be necessary to explain what happened (or didn’t?)