TERTULLIANI_corretto_Layout 6 679 The Emilia 2012 sequence: a macroseismic survey Andrea Tertulliani1,*, Luca Arcoraci2, Michele Berardi2, Filippo Bernardini3, Beatriz Brizuela4, Corrado Castellano2, Sergio Del Mese2, Emanuela Ercolani3, Laura Graziani4, Alessandra Maramai4, Antonio Rossi2, Manuela Sbarra1, Maurizio Vecchi1 1 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma 1, Roma, Italy 2 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Centro Nazionale Terremoti, Roma, Italy 3 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy 4 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma 2, Roma, Italy ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 55, 4, 2012; doi: 10.4401/ag-6140 1. Introduction On May 20, 2012, at 4:03 local time (2:03 UTC), a large part of the Po Valley between the cities of Ferrara, Modena and Mantova was struck by a damaging earthquake (ML 5.9). The epicenter was located by the Istituto Nazionale di Geo- fisica e Vulcanologia (INGV) seismic network [ISIDe 2010] at 44.889 ̊ N and 11.228 ̊ E, approximately 30 km west of Fer- rara (Figure 1). The event was preceded by a foreshock that occurred at 01:13 local time, with a magnitude of ML 4. The mainshock started an intense seismic sequence that lasted for weeks, counting more than 2,000 events, six of which had ML >5. The strongest earthquakes of this sequence occurred on May 29, 2012, with ML 5.8 and ML 5.3, recorded at 9:00 and 12:55 local time, respectively. The epicenters of the May 29, 2012, events were located at the westernmost part of the rupture zone of the May 20, 2012, earthquake (Figure 2). The May 20 and 29, 2012, earthquakes were felt through the whole of northern and central Italy, and as far as Switzer- land, Slovenia, Croatia, Austria, south-eastern France and southern Germany. Historical information reveals that the seismic activity in the Po Valley is moderate; indeed, except for the event that struck Ferrara on November 17, 1570, the last version of the Parametric Catalogue of Italian Earthquakes (CPTI11) [Rovida et al. 2011] does not report many other significant earthquakes occurring in this area [see also Castelli et al. 2012, this volume]. At times, small-to-medium-magnitude earthquakes have occurred in the area of the 2012 sequence, such as the events of December 6, 1986 (MW 4.6), and May 2 and 8, 1987 (MW 4.7, 4.6, respectively), that struck the northern sector of the Mo- dena Province [Locati et al. 2011, Rovida et al. 2011]. The Po Valley is also affected by more frequent seismic activity due to the interaction of the northern Apennines and the Piedmont belt of Emilia, between Parma and Modena, where events of moderate magnitude often occur. An ex- ample of this seismicity was the October 15, 1996, Correggio (Reggio-Emilia) earthquake [Rovida et al. 2011]: this MW 5.4 event produced effects that extended up to the most dam- aged areas of the 2012 sequence [Locati et al. 2011] Soon after the strong earthquake occurred on May 20, 2012, the INGV 'QUick Earthquake Survey Team' (QUEST) organized a field survey of the major damaged areas, to be able to assign macroseismic intensities according to the Eu- ropean Macroseismic Scale (EMS98) [Grünthal 1998]. To take into account the cumulative effects of the after- shocks and their westward displacements, the survey was continuously adjusted and updated, to follow the enlarging 'most damaged zone'. In this report, the preliminary results of the macroseismic survey are presented. 2. The macroseismic survey methodology The field survey performed in the most damaged zones followed the macroseismic techniques commonly used by the INGV: the assessment of the intensity is based on the damage observed to the residential building stock and on the perception of the effects noticed or experienced by people during the earthquake. The buildings observed were divided into typologies and then into vulnerability classes, on the basis of their characteristics. With this aim, the QUEST team performed detailed surveys of the current state of the build- ing stock, to assess the grade of damage according to the EMS98 scale [Grünthal 1998]. The most common building typologies observed in the surveyed area were old traditional brick houses, and recent residential buildings in brick or re- inforced concrete. Old traditional brick houses are in the his- Article history Received July 23, 2012; accepted August 31, 2012. Subject classification: Surveys, measurements and monitoring, Macroseismics. 2012 EMILIA EARTHQUAKES TERTULLIANI ET AL. 680 F ig u re 1 .M ac ro se is m ic in te ns it ie s of th e M ay 2 0, 2 01 2 ea rt hq u ak e. T he b lu e st ar s ho w s th e m ac ro se is m ic e pi ce nt er c om pu te d by B ox er 4 .0 [G as pe ri ni e t a l. 20 10 ]. In se t: L oc at io n of s tu dy a re a. S ee k ey fo r de ta ils . 681 THE EMILIA 2012 SEQUENCE: A MACROSEISMIC SURVEY F ig u re 2 .M ac ro se is m ic in te ns it ie s af te r th e M ay -J u ne 2 01 2 se is m ic s eq u en ce . B lu e st ar , m ac ro se is m ic e pi ce nt er c om pu te d by B ox er 4 .0 [G as pe ri ni e t al . 2 01 0] . B la ck s qu ar es , e pi ce nt er s of e ar th qu ak es w it h M > 5. 0. I ns et : L oc at io n of s tu dy a re a. S ee k ey fo r de ta ils . T he in te ns it y va lu es r ep re se nt t he c u m u la ti ve d am ag e u p to t he Ju ne 3 , 2 01 2. TERTULLIANI ET AL. 682 toric centers, and often lack connections or reinforcing ele- ments, like tie rods or buttresses (vulnerability classes A or B were assigned, according to their state of maintenance). Such reinforcing elements are commonly found in other Italian areas that are prone to significant seismic activity, but they appear not to belong to the building tradition in this study area, even for historical mansions. The recent one-or-two-story residential dwellings in brick or reinforced concrete are mainly sited on the outskirts of the villages and towns (vulnerability classes B and C). The latter type is more common than the traditional brick build- ings. Industrial warehouses and numerous farmhouses were also observed through the countryside or in the suburbs of the towns and cities visited. Industrial warehouses are iso- lated from inhabited areas, and following the guidelines of the EMS98 scale, they were not considered as representative for the intensity value assessment, as for other special build- ings like monuments, churches, towers and belfries. Never- theless, to have a more complete picture of the effects of the 2012 sequence, the damage observed on special buildings and farmhouses was reported as well, as this kind of information is useful to give a thorough picture of the damage distribu- tion, especially in the localities where the residential build- ing stock was undamaged or only lightly damaged. Widespread damage to chimneys was observed during the survey, both for masonry (vulnerability class B) and rein- forced-concrete (vulnerability class C) buildings. This pecu- liarity led us to make a methodological choice. According to the EMS98 scale, the failure of chimneys is considered diag- nostic of grade 3 damage ("moderate structural damage or heavy non-structural damage") for masonry buildings. How- ever, the field survey demonstrated that this type of damage was accompanied by hardly any other diagnostic elements of similar severity. Indeed, in most cases, the failure of the chimney in masonry houses was accompanied by grade 2 damage diagnostics, or was even the only damage observed. This behavior induced us to 'downgrade' the failure of chim- neys in masonry houses to be diagnostic of grade 2 damage. For reinforced-concrete buildings, the EMS98 does not assess this kind of damage at all. To take this indicator into account, which was often observed, chimney failure on reinforced- concrete buildings was defined as diagnostic of grade 1. This assumption was supported because frequently this was in- deed the only noticeable effect of the shaking on reinforced- concrete buildings, which was observed even before the appearance of fine cracks in the plaster. Given the prelimi- nary nature of this study, this interesting issue cannot be stressed here, but will be the object of further studies. The intensity values assigned as a result of the field sur- vey represent the cumulative effects of the May-June 2012 se- quence, as it was almost impossible to distinguish the damage caused by every single strong earthquake after the May 29, 2012, aftershocks, although the survey was continu- ously updated. Anyway, through the prompt reaction, it was possible to define the intensity distribution for the May 20, 2012, event in about 50 localities, which were surveyed before the oc- currence of the important aftershocks [see also QUEST- INGV 2012]. 3. Intensity assessment After the May 20, 2012, earthquake, the maximum in- tensity value (7 EMS98) was assigned to three localities (see Table 1, IEMS 20/05 column; and Figure 1). Major damage (a limited number of total collapses and many partial collapses) was observed in the old and monumental buildings in the historical centers (Figure 3a). Class A and B buildings suffered widespread cracks in the walls, detachment of tiles, and chimney falls (Figure 3b). Heavy damage to industrial bays and farmhouses, and also the collapse of numerous barns, was observed through the whole epicentral area. Almost everywhere in the epicentral area churches, belfries and city towers were heavily damaged, if not collapsed. Minor dam- age to reinforced-concrete buildings was observed in a few Figure 3. a. Partial collapse of a monumental building: the S. Giuseppe church in San Felice sul Panaro. b. Widespread cracks in a class B building in Cavezzo. 683 THE EMILIA 2012 SEQUENCE: A MACROSEISMIC SURVEY cases. Many localities showed slight damage, as generally non-structural or light structural damage. Nevertheless, in other localities, more severe effects produced by the earth- quakes were observed, even if sporadically; in these locali- ties, intensity values of 6 and 6-7 were assessed. Intensity 5 and 5-6 were assigned to all those villages where the damage was negligible or occasionally observed, and in any case where it was very slight. As a consequence of the occurrence of the large after- shocks on May 29, 2012, the QUEST team performed a new field survey to update the information previously collected. All of the localities already visited were surveyed again, and many others were visited for the first time. The aftershocks were located westwards with respect to the mainshock, and they caused heavy damage in a new, larger area, which par- tially overlapped the maximum effects area struck by the May 20, 2012, event. The new survey continued during the whole month of June, gathering data from about 90 localities. The final in- tensities represent the cumulative effects due to the whole sequence. The highest intensity values (I >7 EMS98) were assigned to six localities (Table 1), where a few collapses were observed, both in buildings of reinforced concrete (vulnera- bility class C) and masonry (vulnerability classes A and B). In these localities, many buildings suffered heavy dam- age, such as large and extensive cracks, failure of walls and roofs, and extensive falling of chimneys and roof tiles. In some cases, partial collapse was also observed (grade 4). Re- inforced-concrete buildings rarely suffered structural dam- age, like cracks in beams and columns, and more extensive cracks in partition walls. There was total collapse of very few reinforced-concrete buildings at Cavezzo (I = 8), which had already been slightly damaged by the mainshock (Fig- ure 4), whereas at Rovereto sulla Secchia, several recent res- idential buildings suffered partial collapse. Mirandola, Concordia sulla Secchia and Moglia showed widespread sub- stantial-to-heavy damage, especially concentrated in the his- torical centers, and mainly characterized by buildings of vul- nerability classes A and B. Also in these cases, total collapse was very rare. Intensity values sharply increased for Miran- dola, Concordia and Cavezzo after the May 29, 2012, after- shocks (see Table 1). Intensity values as high as 7 were assigned to six locali- ties, where a large number of masonry buildings of vulner- ability classes A and B suffered moderate damage, as grades 2 and 3, such as large cracks in walls and the falling of chim- neys and roof-tiles. On the contrary, the damage to rein- forced-concrete buildings was light. Nevertheless, a few collapses and heavily damaged monuments and old scruffy structures were observed in the historical centers (usually smaller than the most recent built areas) of localities like San Felice sul Panaro and Finale Emilia. Twenty six localities were assessed at 6 and 6-7 intensi- ties. In these cases, the damage observed was moderate and usually occurred to old and vulnerable buildings; damage grade 4 was observed only sporadically. The damage levels at localities like Camposanto, Crevalcore and Mirabello were noticeably larger after the shocks that occurred on May 29, 2012. Special attention should be focused on the village of San Carlo (Sant'Agostino), where the damage observed (cor- responding in some cases to damage level 3) was largely caused by relevant liquefaction effects. In 32 localities, the damage observed was either slight or negligible, which resulted in intensity values of 5 or 5-6. In these cases, the damage reported was usually falling chim- neys and small pieces of plaster, but it was not widespread through the whole building stock. Some of the surveyed settlements were indeed very small, about 50-60 buildings. In these cases, as suggested by the EMS98 scale, any value of intensity assigned would have been unreliable. Nevertheless, the QUEST team chose to as- sign a 'D' (damage) label to these localities, not only to pro- vide useful information gathered during the survey, but also to account for some damage that in many cases was noticeable. Figure 4. Increase in the damage to reinforced-concrete buildings, for May 20, 2012 (left), and May 29, 2012 (right), in Cavezzo. TERTULLIANI ET AL. 684 Locality Municipality Province IEMS May 20, 2012 Final IEMS Cavezzo MO 6-7 8 Concordia sulla Secchia MO 6 7-8 Mirandola MO 6-7 7-8 Moglia MN 7-8 Novi di Modena MO 7-8 Rovereto sulla Secchia Carpi MO 7-8 Canaletto Finale Emilia MO 7 7 Finale Emilia MO 7 7 Fossoli Carpi MO 7 Ponte San Pellegrino Mirandola MO 7 Reggiolo RE 7 San Felice sul Panaro MO 7 7 Alberone Cento FE 6-7 6-7 Camposanto MO 6 6-7 Crevalcore BO 6 6-7 Mirabello FE 6 6-7 San Carlo Sant'Agostino FE 6-7 6-7 San Giacomo delle Segnate MN 6-7 Bondanello Moglia MN 6 Bondeno FE 6 6 Bondeno Gonzaga MN 6 Carpi MO 6 Casumaro Bondeno FE 6 6 Cento FE 5 6 Massa Finalese Finale Emilia MO 5-6 6 Medolla MO 5-6 6 Motta Cavezzo MO 6 Poggio Renatico FE 6 6 Poggio Rusco MN 5 6 Ponte Rodoni Bondeno FE 6 6 Quistello MN 6 Rivara San Felice sul Panaro MO 6 6 San Martino Spino Mirandola MO 6 San Possidonio MO 6 San Prospero MO 5 6 Sant'Agostino FE 6 6 Scortichino Bondeno FE 6 6 Villarotta Luzzara RE 6 Buonacompra Cento FE D D Camurana Medolla MO D D Caselle Crevalcore BO D D Forcello San Possidonio MO D Galeazza Crevalcore BO 7 D Malcantone di Medolla Medolla MO D D 685 THE EMILIA 2012 SEQUENCE: A MACROSEISMIC SURVEY Locality Municipality Province IEMS May 20, 2012 Final IEMS Molino Albergati Cento FE D D Palata Crevalcore BO D D Pilastrello Cento FE D D Pioppa San Possidonio MO D Reno Centese Cento FE D D Reno Finalese Finale Emilia MO D D Sammartini Crevalcore BO D D Santa Bianca Bondeno FE D D Sant'Alberto San Pietro in Casale BO D D Staggia San Prospero MO D Tortiola Vigarano Mainarda FE D D Brugneto Reggiolo RE 5-6 Budrione Carpi MO 5-6 Fossa Concordia sulla Secchia MO 5 5-6 Gonzaga MN 5-6 Pegognaga MN 5 5-6 Pilastri Bondeno FE 5-6 5-6 Quingentole MN 5-6 Rolo RE 5-6 San Pietro in Casale BO 5-6 5-6 Sant'Agata Bolognese BO 5-6 San Venanzio Galliera BO 5-6 Bomporto MO 5 5 Castello d'Argile BO 5 Castelmassa RO 5 5 Castelnovo Bairano RO 5 5 Dodici Morelli Cento FE 5 Dosso Sant'Agostino FE 5 5 Fabbrico RE 5 Galliera BO 5 5 Nonantola MO 5 Pieve di Cento FE 5 Rami Ravarino MO 5 5 Ravarino MO 5 5 Renazzo Cento FE 5 Sala Bolognese BO 5 San Benedetto Po MN 5 San Giorgio di Piano BO 5 San Giovanni in Persiceto BO 5 5 Sermide MN 5 5 Solara Bomporto MO 5 5 Sorbara Bomporto MO 5 5 Stuffione Ravarino MO 5 5 Table 1. Localities surveyed after the May-June 2012 seismic sequence. The data related to the May 20, 2012, are in the fourth column. 4. Macroseismic parameters At the end of the survey, as a test, we tried to infer the macroseismic parameters (epicenter and macroseismic mag- nitude, for the sake of clarity MEW hereinafter) from the EMS intensities assessed through the Boxer 4.0 code [Gasperini et al. 2010]. Although we are well aware that the Boxer code was developed and calibrated on the basis of the Mercalli–Cancani–Sieberg (MCS) scale [MCS 1930], we still believe that this non-conventional exercise is worthwhile, to improve the macroseismic practice and to open a discussion on future developments of such kinds of codes. The MW 5.9 earthquake of May 20, 2012, produced ef- fects of intensity EMS 7. This value is surprisingly low, con- sidering the more recent empirical relationships for Italy [see Pasolini et al. 2008, Gasperini and Ferrari 2000]. In addition, at the end of the whole sequence, considering the cumula- tive effects of the seven M >5 earthquakes, a maximum in- tensity value of 8 was assigned to only one locality. It is not surprising then that the macroseismic magnitude of the mainshock (MEW 5.1) and the macroseismic magnitude based on the cumulative intensity (MEW 5.3) are significantly lower than the instrumental one (MW 5.9) (Table 2). Regarding the macroseismic epicenters, the epicenter of the May 20, 2012, earthquake was located slightly to the south of the instrumental one (Figure 1), whereas the barycentre of the cumulated effects was located within the cluster of the largest aftershock that occurred on May 29, 2012, and on June 3, 2012 (Figure 2). 5. Conclusions The field observations and some of the preliminary re- sults can be summarized as follows: – In general, recent residential building stock did not suf- fer much damage; heavier damage was observed within the historical centers. – Most of the total or near total collapses (damage grade 5) involved both special and monumental buildings: industrial warehouses, farmhouses, barns, churches, towers or belfries. These kinds of buildings showed an intrinsic weakness with respect to the seismic ground shaking. A lim- ited number of collapses were seen for the residential build- ing stock. In some places, the investigation revealed occa- sional very severe damage within a slight damage scenario, which induced very wary assessments, to avoid overestima- tion of the intensities. – The aftershocks of May 29, 2012, appeared to affect the residential building stock more severely than the May 20, 2012, event did. It has to be underlined that the May 29, 2012, aftershocks were located close to inhabited areas, while the May 20, 2012, earthquake was located in a rela- tively remote area. – The maximum intensity value (IEMS) for the whole se- quence is 8. This value represents the cumulative damage in the area, and it well describes the increase in the damage severity after the May 29, 2012, earthquakes (Figure 2). These earthquakes resulted in the shift of the major damage area westwards. – The results show that the estimation of the macro- seismic magnitudes computed on the basis of the assessed intensity values, was, as expected, considerably lower than the instrumental one (Table 2, Figures 1, 2). – The intensity maps suggest a marked attenuation of the shaking in the N-S direction, which is noticeable both for the May 20, 2012, event and the cumulative intensity map (Figures 1, 2). – The heavy damage suffered by many vulnerable build- ings, such as farmhouses, barns and industrial warehouses, that was observed at the outskirts of several localities high- lights the importance of defining and complying with seis- mic design codes and specifications, which would have made these types of buildings safer. Acknowledgements. We thank C.H. Caracciolo, V. Castelli, A. Ca- valiere, A. Massucci, R. Tonini and S. Vecchi for their contributions during the field surveys. We also thank Ina Cecic and an anonymous referee for their helpful suggestions. References Castelli, V., F. Bernardini, R. Camassi, C.H. Caracciolo, E. Er- colani and L. Postpischl (2012). Looking for missing earthquake traces in the Ferrara-Modena plain: an update on historical seismicity, Annals of Geophysics, 55 (4); doi:10.4401/ag-6110. TERTULLIANI ET AL. 686 Event Instrumental parameters Macroseismic parameters Coordinates (˚N; ˚E) ML Coordinates (˚N; ˚E) MEW May 20, 2012 44.889; 11.228 5.9 44.828; 11.241 5.1 May 29, 2012 44.851; 11.086 5.8 - - Cumulated - - 44.866; 11.017 5.3 Table 2. Instrumental parameters [ISIDe 2010] of the May 20 and 29, 2012, earthquakes, and the macroseismic parameters based on the May 20, 2012, intensities and the cumulative intensities computed by Boxer 4.0 [Gasperini et al. 2010]. 687 Gasperini, P., and Ferrari G. (2000). Deriving numerical esti- mates from descriptive information: the estimation of earthquake synthetic parameters, Annali di Geofisica, 43 (4), 729-746; doi:10.4401/ag-3670. Gasperini, P., G. Vannucci, D. Tripone and E. Boschi (2010). The location and sizing of historical earthquakes using the attenuation of macroseismic intensity with distance, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 100, 2035-2066; doi: 10.1785/01200 90330. Grünthal, G., ed. (1998). European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). European Seismological Commission, Sub- commission on Engineering Seismology, Working Group Macroseismic Scales. Conseil de l'Europe, Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, 15, Luxembourg, 99 pp. ISIDe Working Group (INGV) (2010). Italian seismological instrumental and parametric database: http://iside.rm. ingv.it, last accessed, July 2012. Locati, M., R. Camassi and M. Stucchi, eds. (2011). DBMI11, the 2011 version of the Italian macroseismic database, Mi- lano, Bologna; http://emidius.mi.ingv.it/DBMI11 (last accessed, July 2012). MCS (1930). Scala macrosismica Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg, In: A. Sieberg (ed.), Geologie der Erdbeben, Handbuch der Geophysic, Tables 2 and 3, Berlin. Pasolini, C., D. Albarello, P. Gasperini, V. D'Amico and R. Lolli (2008). The attenuation of seismic intensity in Italy, part II: modeling and validation, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 98, 692-708; doi:10.1785/0120070021. QUEST-INGV (2012). Sintesi degli effetti del terremoto del 20 maggio 2012 (ML=5.9) sulle località rilevate dalle squadre di QUEST INGV, Open file report; http://quest. ingv.it/images/pdf/quest_report_28maggio_protect.pdf (last accessed September 2012). Rovida, A., R. Camassi, P. Gasperini and M. Stucchi, eds. (2011). CPTI11, the 2011 version of the parametric cata- logue of Italian earthquakes, Milano/Bologna; http:// emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI (last accessed, July 2012). *Corresponding author: Andrea Tertulliani, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma 1, Roma, Italy; email: andrea.tertulliani@ingv.it. © 2012 by the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. All rights reserved. THE EMILIA 2012 SEQUENCE: A MACROSEISMIC SURVEY << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles false /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile (None) /AlwaysEmbed [ true /AndaleMono /Apple-Chancery /Arial-Black /Arial-BoldItalicMT /Arial-BoldMT /Arial-ItalicMT /ArialMT /CapitalsRegular /Charcoal /Chicago /ComicSansMS /ComicSansMS-Bold /Courier /Courier-Bold /CourierNewPS-BoldItalicMT /CourierNewPS-BoldMT /CourierNewPS-ItalicMT /CourierNewPSMT /GadgetRegular /Geneva /Georgia /Georgia-Bold /Georgia-BoldItalic /Georgia-Italic /Helvetica /Helvetica-Bold /HelveticaInserat-Roman /HoeflerText-Black /HoeflerText-BlackItalic /HoeflerText-Italic /HoeflerText-Ornaments /HoeflerText-Regular /Impact /Monaco /NewYork /Palatino-Bold /Palatino-BoldItalic /Palatino-Italic /Palatino-Roman /SandRegular /Skia-Regular /Symbol /TechnoRegular /TextileRegular /Times-Bold /Times-BoldItalic /Times-Italic /Times-Roman /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT /TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT /TimesNewRomanPSMT /Trebuchet-BoldItalic /TrebuchetMS /TrebuchetMS-Bold /TrebuchetMS-Italic /Verdana /Verdana-Bold /Verdana-BoldItalic /Verdana-Italic /Webdings ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.10000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.10000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.08250 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description << /ENU (Use these settings to create PDF documents with higher image resolution for high quality pre-press printing. The PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Reader 5.0 and later. These settings require font embedding.) /JPN /FRA /DEU /PTB /DAN /NLD /ESP /SUO /NOR /SVE /KOR /CHS /CHT /ITA >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [595.000 842.000] >> setpagedevice