The 24 August 2016 Amatrice earth-quake: macroseismic survey in the damage area and EMS intensity assessment


ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 59, FAST TRACK 5, 2016; DOI: 10.4401/ag-7203 

 

 1 

The 24 August 2016 Amatrice earth-
quake: macroseismic survey in the 

damage area and EMS intensity          
assessment 

QUEST W.G.: RAFFAELE AZZARO*, ANDREA TERTULLIANI,  FILIPPO BERNARDINI, ROMANO 
CAMASSI, SERGIO DEL MESE, EMANUELA ERCOLANI, LAURA GRAZIANI,  MARIO LOCATI, 

ALESSANDRA MARAMAI, VERA PESSINA, ANTONIO ROSSI, ANDREA ROVIDA, PAOLA ALBINI, 
LUCA ARCORACI, MICHELE BERARDI, CHRISTIAN BIGNAMI, BEATRIZ BRIZUELA, CORRADO 

CASTELLANO, VIVIANA CASTELLI, SALVATORE D’AMICO, VERA D’AMICO, ANTONIO 
FODARELLA, ILARIA LESCHIUTTA,  ALESSANDRO PISCINI,  MANUELA SBARRA 

*raffaele.azzaro@ingv.it 
 

Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Italy 

Abstract 

The 24 August 2016 earthquake very heavily struck the central sector of the Apennines among the La-

zio,Umbria, Marche and Abruzzi regions, devastating the town of Amatrice, the nearby villages and other 

localities along the Tronto valley. In this paper we present the results of the macroseismic field survey car-

ried out using the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) to take the heterogeneity of the building stock into 

account. We focused on the epicentral area, where geological conditions may also have contributed to the 

severity of damage. On the whole, we investigated 143 localities; the maximum intensity 10 EMS has been 

estimated for Amatrice, Pescara del Tronto and some villages in between. The severely damaged area (8-9 

EMS) covers a strip trending broadly N-S and extending 15 km in length and 5 km in width; minor dam-

age occurred over an area up to 35 km northward from the epicenter. 
 

I. INTRODUCTION 

n August 24, 2016, 01:36 GMT, central 

Italy was hit by a Mw 6.0 earthquake  

that caused major destruction and 299 

fatalities over the central sector of the Apen-

nines among the Lazio, Umbria, Marche and 

Abruzzi regions. This earthquake was the 

strongest event of the related seismic sequence, 

with more than 11,500 events recorded until 

the end of September. Among the aftershocks, 

another earthquake exceeded magnitude 5.0 

(the same day, at 02:33 GMT, with Mw 5.4), and 

some fifteen had local magnitude larger than 

4.0 (INGV working group on the Amatrice 

earthquake, 2016). Seismological data acquired 

by the INGV seismic network locate the epi-

centre of the Mw 6.0 earthquake near the 

village of Accumoli (province of Rieti), and 

show an aftershocks distribution along a NW-

SE trend extending for approximately 40 km. 

This area partially fills the gap between the 

O 



ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 59, FAST TRACK 5, 2016; DOI: 10.4401/ag-7203 

 

 2 

1997-98 Umbria-Marche (to the north) and 

2009 L’Aquila (to the south) seismic sequences. 

The damage area includes the Umbria and 

Marche regions as well, with the provinces of 

Rieti, Perugia, Ascoli Piceno and L’Aquila. 

According to the earthquake catalogue CPTI15 

(Rovida et al., 2016) the first relevant known 

event in this area occurred in 1627 (epicentral 

intensity I0 7-8 MCS, Mw 5.3), but information 

on its effects is scarce being limited to Ac-

cumoli. The largest known earthquake 

destroyed Amatrice and surroundings in 1639 

(I0 9-10 MCS, Mw 6.2), with a seismic scenario 

not unlike the present event. 

 
Figure 1: Historical seismicity in the central sec-
tor of Apennines from 1000 to 2014 (data from 
Rovida et al., 2016). The 24 August 2016 
mainshock and the Mw 5.4 aftershock (02:33 
GMT) are indicated by white stars. 

 Other local events affected Monti della Laga 

in 1646 (I0 9 MCS, Mw 5.9) and again Amatrice 

in 1672 (I0 7-8 MCS, Mw 5.3). Apart from the 

1703 seismic sequence (I0max 11 MCS, Mw 6.9) 

that heavily struck the nearby Valnerina, there 

are no earthquakes listed in the catalogue till 

the late 1800s, when the Accumoli-Amatrice 

area was repeatedly hit by some minor events 

(1883, I0 7 MCS, Mw 5.1; 1910, I0 5-6 MCS, Mw 

4.6; 1916, I0 8, Mw 5.5; 1943, I0 6-7, Mw 4.9; 1950, 

I0 4-5 MCS, Mw 4.7 and 1963, I0 7 MCS, Mw 4.7). 

This paper does not include the macroseismic 

effects related to the later events of 26 and 30 

October, with Mw 5.9 and 6.5 respectively, 

which occurred in the same area and aggra-

vated the damage scenario described here. 

II. FEATURES OF BUILDINGS AND THEIR 

VULNERABILITY 

Compared with the Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg 

(MCS) scale, the use of the European Macro-

seismic Scale (EMS, Grünthal, 1998) allows a 

more coherent interpretation of the damage 

scenario in the case of settlements made up of 

very different building typologies. However, 

its use requires a more detailed consideration 

of the type of structure and a specific evalua-

tion of the vulnerability. The EMS classifies 

buildings into 6 classes of decreasing vulnera-

bility, from A to E. Most of the damaged 

localities consist of historic centres with nu-

merous small hamlets located on the top of the 

hills or ridges of the Apennines. The tradition-

al buildings have one or more basement levels 

with barrel vaults, partially above the ground 

because of the steepness of the terrain, while 

the upper levels have wooden slabs and roofs. 

The construction material, of local origin, 

mainly consists of stones of extremely irregu-

lar size, generally rounded or only crudely 

squared off, assembled incoherently and often 

without mortar (Fig. 2). 

The most common vertical structures are made 

up of double layer walls, unconnected, with 

stone faces and rubble masonry fill. This type 

of structure is classified among the most vul-

nerable (class A). Both structural aggregates 



ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 59, FAST TRACK 5, 2016; DOI: 10.4401/ag-7203 

 

 3 

and isolated buildings show signs of modifica-

tions over time: elevations, openings in the 

walls, insertion of the terraces at slab level, use 

of heterogeneous materials other than the orig-

inal kinds (concrete blocks, bricks) have com-

compromised  the structural behavior. Many 

buildings have been retrofitted by replacing 

wooden floors with hard and heavy slabs 

made of reinforced concrete and bricks

  
Figure 2: Pascellata (Valle Castellana): masonry 

building with walls faced with stone and rubble mason-

ry fill. The part in bad state of maintenance compromises 

the rest of the building. 

Figure 3: Amatrice: retrofit with (reinforced) concrete 

slab on old vertical walls without adequate reinforcement 

or proper connections between walls and floor. 

 

(laterocemento), without adequate reinforce-

ment of the old vertical walls and proper 

connections between walls and floors. (Fig. 3). 

Usually, retrofitting decreased the vulnerabil-

ity of the buildings (from class A to class B), 

but in many cases these modifications have 

compromised the integrity of the entire struc-

ture. Many houses were used only as vacation 

homes or are partially abandoned because of 

depopulation in the last fifty years. In these 

cases, the lack of a good state of maintenance 

has increased their vulnerability and often 

made them a source of risk to nearby buildings 

(Fig. 2). 

On the west side of the Apennines there are 

some localities characterized by reconstructed 

or reinforced buildings following the 1979 and 

1997-98 earthquakes (Norcia and Umbria-

Marche events, respectively). 

Historic buildings in square stone masonry 

with horizontal layers of bricks are less vul-

nerable (class B) and were not heavily dam-

aged for the most part, as well as reinforced 

concrete (RC) buildings built more recently 

(vulnerability class C and D). 

III. MACROSEISMIC SURVEY: METHOD AND 

RESULTS 

Soon after the earthquake, the QUEST group 

(Quick Earthquake Survey Team) undertook 

the macroseismic survey with the aim of defin-

ing the damage scenario for civil protection 

purposes. During the first phase of the emer-

gency, we carried out an expeditious 

investigation in cooperation with the Civil Pro-

tection Department by adopting the Mercalli-

Cancani-Sieberg (MCS) macroseismic scale 

(Galli et al., 2016). In order to properly take in-

to account the variability of the damage effects 

due to building vulnerability, and hence the 

associated uncertainties in the intensity as-



ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 59, FAST TRACK 5, 2016; DOI: 10.4401/ag-7203 

 

 4 

sessment, the survey continued with detailed 

inspections of the most damaged areas by us-

ing the EMS. The investigation involved a 

working group with specific field experience 

in applying the EMS in cases of recent, damag-

ing earthquakes (experts from the INGV 

departments of Rome, Bologna, Catania, Mila-

no and Pisa), who operated according to a 

procedure that has been implemented, step by 

step, since the 1997-98 Umbria-Marche seismic 

sequence (Camassi et al., 2008) till the 2009 

L’Aquila and 2012 Emilia earthquakes (Tertul-

liani et al., 2011, 2012; Azzaro et al. 2011). A 

remote support was operated from the head 

office in Rome to coordinate the field teams. 

The EMS survey also included smaller settle-

ments that had not been considered previously 

and was extended to investigate the transition 

area from moderate damage to slight-

negligible one, i.e. 5-6 degrees EMS, where the 

survey was stopped. In other words, areas not 

affected by damage (only felt reports) are not 

considered in the present macroseismic inves-

tigation. In total, we have inspected more than 

150 localities, hamlets included. For each of 

them the focus was on establishing the number 

of buildings, their typology, the elements of 

specific vulnerability, grade of damage and 

percentage of damaged edifices and, i.e. the 

diagnostics of the EMS. All the information 

was reported in common forms routinely used 

by QUEST, which were later used to assess in-

tensity. It should be stressed that problematic 

sites were surveyed up to three times by dif-

ferent teams in order to reduce the subjectivity 

of evaluation. The final number of localities for 

which it has been possible to assign an intensi-

ty value according to the EMS guidelines was 

143, referred to 40 municipalities. 

The distribution of the macroseismic effects es-

timated by the EMS is shown in Figure 4 and 

the localities inventory is given in the Appen-

dix. In general, the distribution of the effects in 

the near-field (I≥8 EMS) shows a pattern elon-

gated in the NNW-SSE direction, with a strong 

attenuation of intensities southward (province 

of L’Aquila). On the contrary, slight but dif-

fuse damage extends northward (provinces of 

Fermo and Macerata). Lastly, a possible effect 

of aggravation of damage due to the Mw 5.4 af-

tershock is observed at San Pellegrino di 

Norcia. 

A short overview of damage scenarios and re-

lated EMS intensities in some key localities, is 

hereinafter reported. 

 

Degree 10 

Some localities in the epicentral area suffered 

the almost total destruction of low quality-

high vulnerability buildings (class A) and of 

many masonry buildings (class B). Exemplary 

is the situation of the historical centre of Ama-

trice, where also some RC buildings (class C) 

collapsed (Fig. 5). A special case is represented 

by the settlement of Pescara del Tronto, built 

on debris cone deposits of a landslide that has 

been reactivated during the earthquake. 

 

Degree 9 

Many hamlets of the territory north of Ama-

trice suffered very heavy damage - total or 

near total collapse of class A buildings. 

 

Degree 8 

Accumoli, Arquata del Tronto and other locali-

ties over an area trending broadly N-S for 15 

km, were affected by severe damage and some 

collapses of class A buildings. 

 



ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 59, FAST TRACK 5, 2016; DOI: 10.4401/ag-7203 

 

 5 

Degree 7 

Moderate damage and a few partial collapses 

of class A buildings occurred in an area ex-

tending for 30 km along the same N-S strike. 

Worthy of note is the case of Fornisco, within 

the slight damage area to the east of the epi-

centre. 

 

 

Degree 6 

The distribution of slight damage (i.e. cracks in 

the plaster, partial collapse of chimneys) is par-

ticular. A substantial number of localities lie 

west of Amatrice, just 4-6 km far from the area 

of degree 9 or 10. Another group is located in 

the northern part of the surveyed area, looking 

like an anomaly inside the degree 5 zone. 

 
Figure 4: EMS intensity map of the August 24, 2016 Amatrice earthquake. Black stars, instrumental epicenters; 

white star, macroseimic epicenter calculated by using the Boxer method (Gasperini et al., 2010): lat. 42.679, long. 

13.280; the magnitude obtained by intensity data  is  Mw 6.3. 

 



ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 59, FAST TRACK 5, 2016; DOI: 10.4401/ag-7203 

 

 6 

Degree 5 

As reported in the EMS guidelines (Grünthal, 

1998), we also considered localities where oc-

casional, very slight damage (i.e. hair-line 

cracks in the plaster) affected a few buildings 

of vulnerability class A and B. Due to the diffi-

culties of observing these negligible effects 

(often visible only inside the edifices) as well 

 
Figure 5: Example of damage to RC buildings: a) Saletta (Amatrice), collapse of individual residential houses; b) 

Amatrice:  a two-storey building before the 24 August 2016 earthquake (photo by Google™ Street View, 2016), and c) 

the resulting sandwich collapse. Inset: detail of the smooth reinforcing bars. 

 



ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 59, FAST TRACK 5, 2016; DOI: 10.4401/ag-7203 

 

 7 

as the extension of the involved area, the in-

ventory of localities is incomplete. 

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

From the macroseismic point of view, the epi-

central area of the 24 August 2016 earthquake 

extends between Amatrice and Arquata del 

Tronto. Here most of the ancient vulnerable 

building stock (class A) collapsed while the 

remaining part of masonry structures suffered 

from heavy (e.g. large diagonal cracks in the 

walls) to very heavy damage (serious failure of 

walls). RC buildings (class C) generally suf-

fered heavy non-structural damage, although 

the failure of infill panels is rather striking; 

some collapses also occurred (e.g. in Ama-

trice). However, the high concentration of 

damage in specific zones depends not only on 

purely engineering factors (poor materials, 

slipshod workmanship, state of repair and 

maintenance), but also on site effects (geotech-

nical properties of terrains, presence of steep 

slopes and ridges). In some cases (e.g. Co-

munanza, Amandola) the heterogeneity of 

building vulnerability determined a striking 

difference in damage severity between histori-

cal centres and recent suburbs. 

Furthermore, it should be stressed that the ef-

fects of past seismicity in the localities of the 

epicentral area were not properly considered 

to improve building vulnerability over time. 

The lack of memory of relevant seismic impact 

can be ascribed to the long time elapsed since 

the last local event in 1639, with the only ex-

ception of Norcia that was struck in 1979. On 

the other hand, some recent repairs produced 

an unexpected but recurrent type of damage 

(i.e. the collapse of old stonewalls under the 

weight of heavy RC slabs). This situation de-

serves further analyses if we consider that 

seismic rules have been mandatory since 1915 

for Amatrice, 1927 for Accumoli and only 1984 

for Arquata del Tronto. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Ina Cecić is thanked for her suggestions that 

improved the manuscript. 

APPENDIX 

List of the investigated localities and EMS in-

tensities assessed for the 24 August 2016 

earthquake (Mw 6.0). 

REFERENCES 

Azzaro, R., Barbano, M.S., D'Amico, S., Tuvè, 

T., Scarfì, L. and Mostaccio, A. (2011). The 

L'Aquila 2009 earthquake: an application of 

the European Macroseismic Scale to the 

damage survey in the epicentral area. Boll. 

Geof. Teor. Appl., 52:561-581. 

Camassi, R., Azzaro, R. and Tertulliani, A. 

(2008). Macroseismology: the lessons learnt 

from the 1997/1998 Colfiorito seismic se-

quence. Ann. Geophys., 51:331-342. 

Galli, P., Peronace, E. and Tertulliani, A. (eds.) 

(2016). Rapporto sugli effetti del terremoto 

del 24 agosto 2016 di Amatrice in scala MCS. 
Roma, rapporto congiunto DPC, CNR‐IGAG, 

INGV, 15 pp., doi: 10.5281/zenodo.161323. 

http://quest.ingv.it/index.php/rilievi-

macrosismici. 

Gasperini, P., Vannucci, G., Tripone, D. and 

Boschi, E. (2010). The location and sizing of 

historical earthquakes using the attenuation 

of macroseismic intensity with distance. Bull. 

Seism. Soc. Am., 100:2035–2066. 

Grünthal, G. (ed.) (1998). European Macrosei-

smic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Cahiers du Centre 

Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismolo-

http://quest.ingv.it/index.php/rilievi-macrosismici
http://quest.ingv.it/index.php/rilievi-macrosismici


ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 59, FAST TRACK 5, 2016; DOI: 10.4401/ag-7203 

 

 8 

gie, 15, Luxembourg, 99 pp., 

http://www.ecgs.lu/cahiers-bleus/. 

INGV working group on the Amatrice earth-

quake (2016). Second summary report on the 

M 6.0 Amatrice earthquake of August 24, 

2016 (Central Italy), doi: 

10.5281/zenodo.166241. 

https://ingvterremoti.files.wordpress.com/2

016/11/en20160920_secondo_rapporto_final

e_del-2408def.pdf. 

Rovida, A., Locati, M., Camassi, R., Lolli, B. 

and Gasperini, P. (eds) (2016). CPTI15, the 

2015 version of the Parametric Catalogue of 

Italian Earthquakes. INGV, doi: 

http://doi.org/10.6092/INGV.IT-CPTI15. 

http://emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI15-DBMI15/. 

Tertulliani, A., Arcoraci, L., Berardi, M., Ber-

nardini, F., Camassi, R., Castellano, C., Del 

Mese, S., Ercolani, E., Graziani, L., Leschiutta, 

I., Rossi, A. and Vecchi, M. (2011). An appli-

cation of EMS98 in a medium-sized city: the 

case of L’Aquila (Central Italy) after the April 

6, 2009 Mw 6.3 earthquake. Bull. Earthquake 

Eng., 9:67-80. 

Tertulliani, A., Arcoraci, L.,  Berardi, M., Ber-

nardini, F., Brizuela, B., Castellano, C., Del 

Mese, S., Ercolani,  E., Graziani, L., Maramai, 

A., Rossi, A., Sbarra, M. and Vecchi, M. 

(2012). The Emilia 2012 sequence: a macro-

seismic survey. Ann. Geophys., "The Emilia 

(northern Italy) seismic sequence of May-

June, 2012: preliminary data and results", 

Anzidei, M., Maramai, A. and Montone, P. 

(eds), 55:4, 679-687; doi 10.4401/ag-6140. 

 

 

http://www.ecgs.lu/cahiers-bleus/
https://ingvterremoti.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/en20160920_secondo_rapporto_finale_del-2408def.pdf
https://ingvterremoti.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/en20160920_secondo_rapporto_finale_del-2408def.pdf
https://ingvterremoti.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/en20160920_secondo_rapporto_finale_del-2408def.pdf
http://emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI15-DBMI15/