GNGTS 2016 - Atti del 35° Convegno Nazionale

360 GNGTS 2016 S essione 2.2 Fig. 1 – Geological-structural map of the study area and geological cross section showing the structural setting of the main units. 2006; Pagliaroli et al. , 2011, 2015). This is a challenging issue in terms of seismic hazard mitigation and microzonation studies. The study area is part of a carbonate ridge made of Upper Jurassic-UpperCretaceous limestones that experienced polyphasical tectonic activity during the Apennines building (Centamore et al. , 2002; Saroli et al. , 2003). We selected a c. 50m-thick fault zone characterised by a complex damage/core zone architecture exposed in a 3D view. Methods and results. Geological survey. Weperformed (i) geological-structural surveys, (ii) geophysical measurements (i.e., 2D-arrays, MASW, noise measurements processed with HVSR and SSR technique), (iii) geomechanical analyses by using the Schmidt hammer along and across a 50 m-thick fault zone cutting through the Cretaceous limestones. The geological-structural map of the study area was made (Fig.1): a NNW-SSE-striking fault zone cuts across the thick sequence of calcilutites organised in a general monoclinale geometry dipping to N. The fault zone marks the contact between the Upper Cretaceous units