PONDRELLI_corretto_Layout 6 615 Quick regional centroid moment tensor solutions for the Emilia 2012 (northern Italy) seismic sequence Silvia Pondrelli1,*, Simone Salimbeni1, Paolo Perfetti, Peter Danecek2 1 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy 2 Instituto Andaluz de Geofísica, Universidad de Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, Granada, Spain ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 55, 4, 2012; doi: 10.4401/ag-6146 1. Introduction Seismic moment tensors are one of the most relevant pieces of information about earthquakes for the present day. The moment magnitude, MW, is derived from the seismic mo- ment tensor, and is considered worldwide as the standard measure of earthquake dimensions. From the moment tensor, or its best double couple, i.e., the focal mechanism, it is possi- ble to immediately understand the tectonic style, and thus the kind of activated fault. The computation of the moment ten- sor immediately after an earthquake has occurred can be used to rapidly provide shaking distributions, eventually including it in a shaking map computation, or it can be used in source propagation studies to infer the presence of rupture directivity. Over the last 15 years, regional centroid moment ten- sors (RCMTs) have been computed regularly and have con- tributed to the European-Mediterranean RCMT catalog [Pondrelli et al. 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011] (http://www. bo.ingv.it/RCMT). The RCMT is obtained by inverting for intermediate surface waves filtered in the interval of 35 s to 60 s as a function of the magnitude; body waves are also in- cluded in the inversion, when favorable, and they are mod- eled separately, but simultaneously [Pondrelli et al. 2011]. Seismograms recorded at regional distances contain the best signals to invert for the source parameters of moderate mag- nitude earthquakes. For greater magnitude events, data from much more distant stations are also used. Body waves are modeled by summation of the Earth normal modes added with three-dimensional heterogeneous mantle structure [Woodhouse and Dziewonski 1984], while for surface waves, global phase velocity maps are used [Ekström et al. 1997]. During the last few years, we have developed an auto- matic python procedure, named Pypaver, which helps to shorten the Quick RCMT (QRCMT) computation times [Pondrelli et al. 2012], and it was successfully used during the Emilia 2012 (northern Italy) seismic sequence. In this study, we first show our QRCMT solutions, and then we describe the motivation for wide use of automatic procedures. We also explain why a manual review of seismic moment tensor solutions for most earthquakes analyzed is still preferred be- fore publication. Indeed, the evidence that QRCMTs are sta- ble solutions is given by the comparison with seismic moment tensors produced by other agencies and with other computation methods. 2. Quick RCMT solutions for the Emilia seismic sequence During the night between May 19 and 20, 2012, the Emilia region (northern Italy) started to be shaken by a seis- mic sequence. The first major event, of ML 5.9 (MW 6.1) that occurred at 02:03 UTC time was preceded by a ML 4.1 (MW 4.3) earthquake, about 2 h before. During the same night, several events with ML between 4.5 and 5.1 also oc- curred (http://iside.rm.ingv.it/) [see other reports in this An- nals of Geophysics special volume]. The seismic sequence had another increase in activity on May 29, 2012, with a ML 5.8 (MW 5.9) event in the morning, at 07:00 UTC, fol- lowed by two events with ML 5.3 and 5.2, one at 10:55 UTC and the other 5 min later, respectively. The last ML >5 event occurred in June 3rd, with ML 5.1 (MW 4.9). In a month, 30 earthquakes with ML >4.0 were recorded, and of the total, about 2,500 events were located during the following three months (http://iside.rm.ingv.it/). In Figure 1, the QRCMT solutions that we were able to compute are mapped; the colored dots represent other events belonging to this seismic sequence. All of the focal mechanisms were thrust, in some cases with different, but small, percentages of strike-slip components. In Table 1, the source parameters for all of the QRCMTs are reported. The recomputed depth is also included, even if for the QRCMT it can be considered as an approximate evaluation, overall for shallow earthquakes (depth <10 km), as in this case. The MW values we obtained are in very good agreement with those from other agencies, and they showed regular behavior with Article history Received July 24, 2012; accepted September 14, 2012. Subject classification: Earthquake source, Seismic moment tensor, Wave analysis, Data processing. 2012 EMILIA EARTHQUAKES PONDRELLI ET AL. 616 Event ID Day (yyyy-mm-dd) Time (hh:mm:ss UTC) Latitude (˚N) Longitude (˚E) Depth (km) ML MW M0 (Nm) Strike 1 Dip 1 Slip 1 Strike 2 Dip 2 Slip 2 1 2012-05-19 23:13:27 44.90 11.26 13.6 4.1 4.29 3.37e15 85 32 50 310 66 112 2 2012-05-20 02:03:53 44.89 11.23 11.4 5.9 6.11 1.81e18 109 30 99 279 60 85 3 2012-05-20 03:02:50 45.05 11.17 14.1 4.9 5.05 4.60e16 103 27 89 284 63 91 4 2012-05-20 13:18:02 44.83 11.49 10.0 5.1 5.18 7.25e16 100 37 64 312 57 109 5 2012-05-20 17:37:14 44.88 11.38 12.9 4.5 4.52 0.76e16 235 43 72 79 50 106 6 2012-05-21 16:37:31 44.85 11.35 10.0 4.1 4.13 1.93e15 243 37 92 60 53 89 7 2012-05-23 21:41:18 44.85 11.36 11.9 4.3 4.13 1.96e15 77 43 63 292 52 113 8 2012-05-29 07:00:03 45.00 11.12 11.1 5.8 5.96 1.07e18 110 20 103 276 71 85 9 2012-05-29 08:25:51 45.02 10.90 12.0 4.5 4.69 1.36e16 105 21 94 281 69 88 10 2012-05-29 10:55:57 44.99 10.97 11.4 5.3 5.53 2.42e17 112 32 101 279 59 83 11 2012-06-03 19:20:43 44.96 10.96 10.0 5.1 4.89 2.68e16 92 16 37 326 81 103 12 2012-06-06 04:08:31 44.45 12.26 25.4 4.5 4.34 4.00e15 28 66 -10 122 81 -156 13 2012-06-12 01:48:36 44.88 10.89 13.7 4.3 4.19 2.37e15 56 52 39 299 60 135 Figure 1. Map showing the QRCMTs (red, focal mechanisms) and their P axes (inset, lower left). Green, seismicity of seismic sequence with a M <3.0; yellow, seismicity of seismic sequence with M ≥3.0. The small black focal mechanisms are all RCMTs from the European Mediterranean catalog for seis- micity before May 2012. Black dots (with dimensions proportional to magnitude), previous seismicity from http://iside.rm.ingv.it. Table 1. Source parameters for the events of the Emilia sequence for which a QRCMT was computed. 617 respect to the ML, as we had already seen for the L'Aquila seismic sequence [Pondrelli et al. 2010]. Strong evidence for the stability of the QRCMTs is pro- vided by a comparison with all of the available quick solu- tions, which is possible at the European Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC) website, where all of the seis- mic moment tensors for the same earthquake are gathered into a dedicated database (http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earth quake/tensors.php), or through maps for the single events (e.g., http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake. php?id=267440#map). For the May 20, 2012, ML 5.9 event, solutions from USGS, Geofon (GFZ), Global CMT (HARV), GeoAZUR (AZUR) and California Poly Pomona (CPP) ap- pear to be in strong agreement with our QRCMT, in terms of the focal mechanisms and MW values (named as INGV on the map and in the Table on the EMCS webpage). This sim- ilarity is consistent for all of the events of the sequence with magnitudes >5.0. For smaller magnitude earthquakes, the only possible comparison is with the time-domain moment tensor (TDMT) computed by the INGV (http://cnt.rm.ingv. it/tdmt.html) [Scognamiglio et al. 2009]. We used different stations and a signal characterized by a different frequency, al- though usually we have strong similarities [Scognamiglio et al. 2009], as for instance in the solutions for the May 20, 2012, 17:37 UTC, ML 4.5 event: both the QRCMT and the TDMT show rotation towards the NW of the P axis (http://cnt.rm. ingv.it/data_id_old//7222922570/map_dmt_review.pdf ). The thrust mechanisms, as for those determined for the Emilia earthquakes, are in agreement with the compressive tectonic structures that belong to the Apennines and are buried below the Po Plain sediments [Boccaletti et al. 2004, 2011, and references therein], in particular with the fold and thrust structures that are commonly named as the Emilia Arc, the Ferrara-Romagna Arc and the Adriatic Arc (Figure 1, white toothed lines) [Pieri and Groppi 1981, Montone and Mariucci 1999, Carminati et al. 2010, Lavecchia et al. 2004, Scrocca 2006]. The shape of these arcs helps in the understanding of the variation in the P-axes directions of the QRCMT solutions (Figure 1, inset): major events show pure, low angle, thrust mechanisms, with a P axis pointing towards the north. Some aftershocks clearly rotate with respect to this dominant north- wards direction; in particular, those pointing towards the NW that are located close to the NE-striking part of the buried thrust front (Figure 1). Most of the faults that populate the folds and thrusts buried beneath the Po Plain are high-angle structures, although there are also some low angle faults, in agreement with most of the QRCMT focal mechanisms. The seismic moment tensor of one more event, which occurred on June 6, 2012, is considered out of sequence, because it was located 100 km east of the principally struck region; it has been taken into account anyway, because it occurred along one of the tectonic structures related to those that were activated dur- ing the seismic sequence itself. It is pure strike-slip, and it can be interpreted as occurring at the crossing point of the Fer- rara-Romagna Arc and the Adriatic Arc (Figure 1). 3. QRCMT computation technique: automatic and rapidly revised solutions We obtained a robust rapidly revised solution for 13 earthquakes of the sequence (Table 2). All of these have been computed automatically previously, following a process that was activated by Alert emails, and was mainly structured into QRCMTs OF 2012 EMILIA SEISMIC SEQUENCE Event ID Exp Mrr S.E. Mss S.E. Mee S.E. Mrs S.E. Mre S.E. Mse S.E. 1 15 2.51 0.52 –2.39 0.28 –0.12 0.31 –1.12 0.32 2.0 0.50 0.59 0.19 2 18 1.51 0.06 –1.52 0.04 0.20 0.03 –0.92 0.13 0.06 0.10 0.40 0.03 3 16 3.39 0.31 –3.84 0.18 0.44 0.17 –2.59 0.31 0.66 0.31 1.09 0.12 4 16 6.33 0.18 –5.39 0.17 –0.94 0.17 –1.22 0.57 2.84 0.50 2.83 0.16 5 16 0.75 0.10 –0.62 0.07 –0.14 0.05 0.15 0.09 –0.14 0.09 –0.25 0.05 6 15 1.80 0.16 –1.46 0.13 –0.34 0.13 0.43 0.39 0.27 0.39 –0.87 0.13 7 15 1.75 0.31 –1.92 0.22 0.17 0.21 –0.25 0.36 0.61 0.61 0.17 0.10 8 18 0.63 0.02 –0.66 0.02 0.03 0.01 –0.83 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.16 0.01 9 16 0.80 0.22 –0.96 0.13 0.16 0.13 –0.99 0.31 0.19 0.28 0.26 0.09 10 17 2.07 0.12 –2.04 0.08 –0.04 0.06 –1.13 0.19 0.05 0.21 0.59 0.05 11 16 0.88 0.15 –0.84 0.09 –0.04 0.16 –1.26 0.33 2.14 0.43 0.52 0.10 12 15 –0.27 0.58 –2.97 0.35 3.24 0.42 –1.78 0.42 0.23 0.54 –1.78 0.20 13 15 1.40 0.40 –1.95 0.25 0.55 0.23 –0.30 0.22 1.71 0.50 –0.19 0.14 Table 2. Exponent and moment tensor elements, together with their standard errors. a data-managing part and a computational part [Pondrelli et al 2012]. QRCMT solutions obtained automatically are suc- cessively reviewed by an operator, who checks the waveform selection and reliability of the fits and the quality of the cen- troid location. If necessary, the operator can fix the epicenter coordinates and depth. Usually, a repeated inversion over dif- ferent depths values is also carried out, mainly when working with shallow events, as in this case, to find the centroid depth that generates the best fit between the waveforms and the synthetic seismograms. We have been working on this pro- cedure since the L'Aquila sequence, as we are confident that the QRCMT solutions can have a relevant contribution to the rapid assessment of earthquake scenarios. During this Emilia sequence, we tested some of the positive results. All of the solutions were published on the web within 1 h of the earthquake occurrence. This timing arises from four phases: (i) the Alert email; (ii) data recovery; (iii) com- putational time; and (iv) visual inspection and revision. On average, during this sequence, computations took 7-8 min (including seismogram recovery; e.g. points (ii) and (iii) above) which is the typical timing we observed for isolated moderate magnitude events. The manual revision took from 10 min to 20 min (e.g., point (iv)); the rest of time was mainly taken up by communication and network traffic jams (e.g., point (i)). Indeed, for the May 20, 2012, ML 5.9 and 29 May, 2012, ML 5.8 events, and for the successive aftershocks, on average, the whole of the process took between 70 min and 90 min, which were mainly spent waiting for the Alert email and the data recovery. While there are technical solutions to shorten the seismogram time collection – and we are testing some of these – we still did not find any solution to cut down the Alert time. We receive Alert emails from INGV for Italy and from EMSC for the rest of Mediterranean region. Dur- ing the Emilia sequence, we received the Alert email after 8- 10 min for all of the events, but for the strongest one, we had to wait more than 20 min. If the QRCMT publishing time cannot be shortened, we prefer to focus on the high quality of our solutions. Taking into account that we commonly study low to moderate (be- tween 4.0 and 5.5) magnitude events, we choose to manu- ally revise the solutions before the web publication, overall considering that this part of the procedure takes about the same time that we wait for the Alerts. The manual revision often solves all of the data instabilities that affect mainly the QRCMT computation of low to moderate magnitude events, due to seismogram selection, to better satisfying a good azimuthal distribution of stations, or to choose the best filtering in relation to the magnitude and epicenter–station distance. An example of different conditions of station az- imuthal distributions combined with epicenter–station dis- tances is shown in Figure 2. For the minor event with ML 4.1 (MW 4.3) of May 19, 2012, that preceded the mainshock, the azimuthal distribution is relatively uneven, although all of the stations have a real regional distance of between 1 and 10 degrees (Figure 2). On the other hand, the azimuthal distri- bution for the main shock is better, because it was completed by some farther away stations that cover the western back azimuths. This better homogeneity around the event is guar- PONDRELLI ET AL. 618 Date (yyyy-mm-dd) Time (hh:mm:ss UTC) MW Automatic rms Revised rms 2012-05-19 23:13:27 4.29 0.765 0.324 2012-05-20 02:03:53 6.11 0.250 0.150 2012-05-20 03:02:50 5.05 0.444 0.186 2012-05-20 13:18:02 5.18 0.646 0.095 2012-05-20 17:37:14 4.52 0.729 0.274 2012-05-21 16:37:31 4.13 0.920 0.288 2012-05-23 21:41:18 4.13 0.737 0.265 2012-05-29 07:00:03 5.96 0.314 0.127 2012-05-29 08:25:51 4.69 0.683 0.298 2012-05-29 10:55:57 5.53 0.306 0.091 2012-06-03 19:20:43 4.89 0.613 0.367 2012-06-06 04:08:31 4.34 0.741 0.378 2012-06-12 01:48:36 4.19 0.718 0.370 Figure 2. Station distribution around the epicenter for the May 19, 2012, ML 4.1 and May 20, 2012, ML 5.9 events, to compare the station distribution and availability a short time after the event with changing magnitude. Different colors represent different station–epicenter distances, in degrees. Table 3. Information on the automatic and rapidly revised solutions. 619 anteed by the greater magnitude, with a better signal-to- noise ratio at greater distance, which allows lower filtering. This is demonstrated also by some of the examples of com- parisons between data and synthetic waveforms in Figure 3, where for the same distance, we need different filtering to obtain the best signal-to-noise ratio with respect to the best fit. For the mainshock, a cut off between 50 s and 150 s is enough, while for lower magnitude events, we have to filter the signal between 35 s and 75 s, which obtains a noisier waveform, but a good fit too (Figure 3). What we observed during the Emilia seismic sequence through checking all of the automated procedure timing and results is that we could have published the automatically computed QRCMTs for the events with magnitudes >5.5. Table 3 gives the root mean square (r.m.s.) values computed on the entire set of seismograms that we inverted, for each solution, before and after the manual revision. All of the events with magnitudes >5.5 (Table 3, with gray back- QRCMTs OF 2012 EMILIA SEISMIC SEQUENCE Figure 3. Examples of waveforms (blue) and synthetics (red) used for the QRCMT computations. Left: examples for the May 20, 2012, ML 5.8 event. Right: examples for the May 19, 2012, ML 4.1 event. ground) show r.m.s. for the automatic solution that are within the criteria that match with a stable solution (e.g., <0.4). Other criteria needed are also respected: at least the data from three stations that were azimuthally well distrib- uted around the epicenter (Figure 4); a focal mechanism that was stable over five iterations (Figure 4); a difference between initial and final coordinates <0.3˚; and a small non-double- couple component [Pondrelli et al. 2006]. These characteris- tics allowed these solutions to be considered for immediate web publication, in 30-45 min from event occurrence. This result, which will drive our choice for the future, is valid only for strong Italian earthquakes, where the aforementioned conditions are satisfied: sufficient data availability in terms of distance and azimuthal distribution around the epicenter. For smaller magnitude events, the manual revision of the seismic moment tensor solutions is still fundamental. How- ever, finding the technical solutions for the filtering with re- spect to the station distance and the data availability would allow a lowering of the magnitude threshold for automatic immediate QRCMT publication, at least for Italy. 4. Conclusions The QRCMT solutions we computed for large to mod- erate magnitude events during the Emilia 2012 sequence are in agreement with the seismotectonic setting of the shaken region and with the solutions distributed by other agencies. We determined the seismic moment tensors for 13 events, and for some of these we obtained a very stable QRCMT so- lution, already from the automated system of recovery and the computations developed in house over recent years. The sequence was an important test to demonstrate that for events that occur in Italy with M >5.5 our automated system for QRCMT computation works very well, and we can as- sume for the future to immediately publish the automated solutions on the web, without any manual revisions. Acknowledgements. We thank the Data Centers of MedNet, Geo- fon and the GSN, starting from the people who take care of the instruments at the station sites, to those who make the data available on the web. We are grateful to Paolo Boncio and to an anonymous reviewer for important suggestions and comments on our original manuscript. Plots were made using the Generic Mapping Tools, version 4.2.1 [www.soest.hawaii.edu/gmt; Wessel and Smith 1998]. All of the QRCMT solutions are commonly pub- lished a short time after the event occurrence on the dedicated web pages http://autorcmt.bo.ingv.it/quicks.html, and on the EMSC web pages. References Boccaletti, M., M. Bonini, G. Corti, P. Gasperini, L. Martelli, L. Piccardi, C. Tanini and G. Vannucci (2004). Seismotec- tonic Map of the Emilia-Romagna Region, 1:250000. Re- gione Emilia-Romagna – CNR. Boccaletti, M., G. Corti and L. Martelli (2011). Recent and active tectonics of the external zone of the northern Apennines (Italy), Int. J. Earth Sci., 100, 1331-1348. Carminati, E., D. Scrocca and C. Doglioni (2010). Com- paction-induced stress variations with depth in an active PONDRELLI ET AL. 620 Figure 4. Comparison between the automatic and revised conditions for the three events of the seismic sequence with M >5.5. Upper parts: For each QRCMT, the station distribution is shown around the epicenter for surface (S) and body (B) waves, and the number of stations (ns) and number of components (nc) used in the inversion. Lower parts: All five moment tensors are shown, as obtained for each iteration of the inversion, where the red one is the final solution. 621 anticline: northern Apennines, Italy, J. Geophys. Res., 115, B02401; doi:10.1029/2009JB006395. Ekström, G., J. Tromp and E.W.F. Larson (1997). Measure- ments and global models of surface wave propagation. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 8137-8158. Lavecchia, G., N. Boncio, N. Creati and F. Brozzetti (2004). Stile strutturale e significato sismogenetico del fronte compressivo padano-adriatico: dati e spunti da una revi- sione critica del profilo Crop 03 integrata con l'analisi di dati sismologici, B. Soc. Geol. Ital., 123, 111-125. Montone, P., and M. Mariucci (1999). Active stress along the NE external margin of the Apennines: The Ferrara Arc, northern Italy, J. Geodyn., 28, 251-265. Pieri, M., and G. Groppi (1981). Subsurface geological struc- tures of the Po Plain, CNR, Progetto Finalizzato Geodi- namica, Pubblicazione 414. Pondrelli, S., A. Morelli, G. Ekström, S. Mazza, E. Boschi and A.M. Dziewonski (2002). European-Mediterranean re- gional centroid-moment tensors: 1997-2000, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 130, 71-101. Pondrelli S., A. Morelli and G. Ekström (2004). European- Mediterranean regional centroid moment tensor catalog: solutions for years 2001 and 2002, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 145, 127-147. Pondrelli, S., S. Salimbeni, G. Ekström, A. Morelli, P. Gasperini and G. Vannucci (2006). The Italian CMT dataset from 1977 to the present, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 159, 286-303; doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2006.07.008. Pondrelli, S., S. Salimbeni, A. Morelli, G. Ekström and E. Boschi (2007). European-Mediterranean regional centroid moment tensor catalog: solutions for years 2003 and 2004, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 164, 90-112. Pondrelli, S., S. Salimbeni, A. Morelli, G. Ekström, M. Olivieri and E. Boschi (2010). Seismic moment tensors of the April 2009, L'Aquila (central Italy) earthquake se- quence, Geophys. J. Int.; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009. 04418.x Pondrelli, S., S. Salimbeni, A. Morelli, G. Ekström, L. Post- pischl, G. Vannucci and E. Boschi (2011). European- Mediterranean regional centroid moment tensor catalog: solutions for 2005-2008, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 185, 74-81. Pondrelli, S., P. Perfetti and P. Danecek (2012). Pypaver: au- tomazione del calcolo dei Quick RCMT con Python, Rap- porti Tecnici INGV, submitted. Scognamiglio, L., E. Tinti and A. Michelini (2009). Real-time determination of seismic moment tensor for Italian re- gion, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 99, 2223-2242; doi:10.1785/ 0120080104. Scrocca, D. (2006). Thrust front segmentation induced by dif- ferential slab retreat in the Apennines (Italy), Terra Nova, 18, 154-161. Wessel, P., and W.H.F. Smith (1998). New improved version of the generic mapping tools released, Eos Trans. AGU, 79, 579. Woodhouse, J.H., and A.M. Dziewonski (1984). Mapping the upper mantle: three dimensional modelling of earth structure by inversion of seismic waveforms. J. Geophys. Res., 89, 5953-5986. *Corresponding author: Silvia Pondrelli, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; email: silvia.pondrelli@bo.ingv.it. © 2012 by the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. All rights reserved. QRCMTs OF 2012 EMILIA SEISMIC SEQUENCE << /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