Improved new methods of seismic risk assessment and seismic zoning in Kazakhstan according to Eurocode 8

Abstract

This article aims to enhance seismic hazard assessment methods for Kazakhstan's seismotectonic conditions. It combines probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), ground motion simulation, sitespecific geological and geotechnical data analysis, and seismic scenario analysis to develop Probabilistic General Seismic Zoning (GSZ) maps for Kazakhstan and Probabilistic Seismic Microzoning maps for Almaty. These maps align with Eurocode 8 principles, incorporating seismic intensity and engineering parameters like peak ground acceleration (PGA). The new procedure, applied in national projects, has resulted in GSZ maps for the country, seismic microzoning maps for Almaty, and detailed seismic zoning maps for East Kazakhstan. These maps, part of a regulatory document, guide earthquake-resistant design and construction. They offer a comprehensive assessment of seismic hazards, integrating traditional Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik (MSK-64) intensity scale points with quantitative parameters like peak ground acceleration. This innovative approach promises to advance methods for quantifying seismic hazards in specific regions.

Keywords

Seismic hazard assessment methods / Seismic Zoning (GSZ) maps / Scale of seismic intensity / Central Asia region / Earthquakes / Eurocode 8 / Geological disaster prevention and control engineering

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Daulet Sarsenbaev, Abdulaziz Abdullaev and Nursarsen Uzbekov conceived of the presented idea. Alla Sadykova and Yelizaveta Yessenzhigitova carried out the experiment. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgement

The work was carried out in the framework of earmarked funding "Assessment of seismic hazard of territories of Kazakhstan on modern scientific and methodological basis", programme code number F.0980. Source of funding Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

References

[1] Alshembari R, Parolai S, Boxberger T, Sandron D, Pilz M, Sylacheva N. 2020. Seasonality in site response: An example from two historical earthquakes in Kazakhstan. Seismological Research Letters, 91(1), 415-426. doi: 10.1785/0220190114.

[2] Amey RMJ, Elliott JR, Hussain E, Walker R, Pagani M, Silva V, Abdrakhmatov KE, Watson CS. 2021. Significant seismic risk potential from buried faults beneath Almaty City, Kazakhstan, revealed from high-resolution satellite DEMs. Earth and Space Science, 8(9), e2021EA001664. doi: 10.1029/2021EA001664.

[3] Ammirati JB, Villaseñor A, Chevrot S, Easton G, Lehujeur M, Ruiz S,.2022. Automated earthquake detection and local travel time tomography in the south-central Andes ( 32-35^∘ S) : Implications for regional tectonics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(4), e2022JB024097. doi: 10.1029/2022JB024097.

[4] Ansari A, Zahoor F, Rao KS, Jain AK. 2023. Seismic response and vulnerability evaluation of Jammu Region (Jammu and Kashmir). Indian Geotechnical Journal, 53(3), 509-522. doi: 10.1007/s40098-022-00694-0.

[5] Artikov TU, Ibragimov RS, Ibragimova TL, Mirzaev MA. 2020. Models of the macroseismic field earthquakes and their influence on seismic hazard assessment values for Central Asia. Geodynamics & Tectonophysics, 11(3), 606-623. doi: 10.5800/gt-2020-11-3-0494.

[6] Artykbaev D, Dosaliyev K, Duisenbekov B, Nurseitov S, Mizamov N. 2024. Seismic resistance of loess soils. E3S Web of Conferences, 474, 01035. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202447401035.

[7] Bannikov DO, Radkevich AV, Nikiforova NA. 2019. Features of the design of steel frame structures in India for seismic areas. Materials Science Forum, 968, 348-354. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/msf.968.348.

[8] Butenweg C, Bursi OS, Paolacci F, Marinković M, Lanese I, Nardin C, Quinci G. 2021. Seismic performance of an industrial multi-storey frame structure with process equipment subjected to shake table testing. Engineering Structures, 243, 112681. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112681.

[9] CN RK 2.03-28-2004. MSK-64(K) Earthquake Intensity Scale. 2004. https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=30400303.

[10] Code of Rules of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2.03-30-2017. 2017. Construction in seismic zones. https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=36128461.

[11] European Union. 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. https://www.phd.eng.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/en.1998.1.2004.pdf.

[12] Hamdy O, Gaber H, Abdalzaher MS, Elhadidy M. 2022. Identifying exposure of urban area to certain seismic hazard using machine learning and GIS: A case study of greater Cairo. Sustainability, 14(17), 10722. doi: 10.3390/su141710722.

[13] Han J, Chen S, Li H, Zhang B, Lu H, Shi W, Xu W, Jia L. 2022. The recent progress using high-precision terrestrial gravity measurements. Reviews of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, 53(1), 17-34. doi: 10.19975/j.dqyxx.2021-038.

[14] Işık E, Harirchian E, Büyüksaraç A, Levent Ekinci Y. 2021. Seismic and structural analyses of the eastern Anatolian Region (Turkey) using different probabilities of exceedance. Applied System Innovation, 4(4), 89. doi: 10.3390/asi4040089.

[15] Kamali Z, Nazari H, Rashidi A, Heyhat MR, Khatib MM, Derakhshani R. 2023. Seismotectonics, geomorphology and paleoseismology of the doroud fault, a source of seismic hazard in Zagros. Applied Sciences, 13(6), 3747. doi: 10.3390/app13063747.

[16] Kendzera O, Semenova Y. 2020. Seismic zoning of Kyiv in physical parameters of soil oscillations. Geodynamics, 2(29), 97-106. doi: 10.23939/jgd2020.02.097.

[17] Kobets A, Aliiev E, Tesliuk H, Aliieva O. 2023. Simulation of the process of interaction of the working bodies of tillage machines with the soil in Simcenter STAR-CCM+. Machinery & Energetics, 14(1), 9-23. doi: 10.31548/machinery/1.2023.09.

[18] Komilova N, Makhmudov B, Latipov N. 2023. Study of crimes in the city of Kokand using GIS technologies and sociological questionnaires. Visnyk of V N Karazin Kharkiv National University, Series Geology Geography Ecology, (59), 125-139. doi: 10.26565/2410-7360-2023-59-10.

[19] Korchynska OC, Mykyychuk M. 2023. Sources of metrological risks as factors of influence on the technological process. Bulletin of Cherkasy State Technological University, 28(1), 61-71. doi: 10.24025/2306-4412.1.2023.273708.

[20] Lario J, Bardají T, Silva PG, Zazo C, Goy JL. 2016. Improving the coastal record of tsunamis in the ESI-07 scale: Tsunami Environmental Effects Scale (TEE-16 scale). Geologica Acta, 14(2), 179-193. doi: 10.1344/GeologicaActa2016.14.2.6.

[21] Nikulins V. 2017. Seismicity of the East Baltic Region and ApplicationOriented Methods in the Conditions of Low Seismicity. Riga, LU Akadēmiskais Apgāds, 123-128.

[22] Orgoványi P, Karches T. 2024. GIS-based model parameter enhancement for urban water utility networks. Urban Science, 8(2), 35. doi: 10.3390/urbansci8020035.

[23] Petricca P, Carminati E, Doglioni C. 2022. Estimation of the maximum earthquakes magnitude based on potential brittle volume and strain rate: The Italy test case. Tectonophysics, 836, 229405. doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2022.229405.

[24] Rashid MS, Zhang DC, Moon SW, Sarkulova D, Shokbarov Y, Kim J. 2023. Macro-seismic assessment for residential buildings constructed in the soviet union era in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Buildings, 13(4), 1053. doi: 10.3390/buildings13041053.

[25] Rasulov KhZ, Toshmatov ES, Artykbaev DZh. 2023. Earthquakeresistant steepness of slope structures. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2612, 020006. doi: 10.1063/5.0113268.

[26] Rusho MA, Azizova R, Mykhalevskiy D, Karyonov M, Hasanova H. 2024. Advanced earthquake prediction: Unifying networks, algorithms, and attention-driven 1stm modelling. International Journal of Geomate, 27(119), 135-142. doi: 10.21660/2024.119.m2415.

[27] Sawires R, Peláez JA, Hamdache M. 2020. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for united Arab emirates, Qatar and Bahrain. Applied Sciences, 10(21), 7901. doi: 10.3390/app10217901.

[28] Shtohryn L, Kasiyanchuk D, Baranichenko V, Shtohryn M. 2023. Geoinformation analysis of natural factors of landslide formation in the region of the Folded Carpathians (in the Zakarpattia Region). Ecological Safety and Balanced Use of Resources, 14(1),75-84. doi: 10.31471/2415-3184-2023-1(27)-75-84.

[29] Silacheva NV, Kulbayeva UK, Kravchenko NA. 2018. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Kazakhstan and Almaty city in peak ground accelerations. Geodesy and Geodynamics, 9(2), 131-141. doi: 10.1016/j.geog.2017.11.002.

[30] Silacheva NV, Kulbayeva UK, Kravchenko NA. 2020. On the realization of seismic microzonation of Almaty (Kazakhstan) in ground accelerations based on the "continual" approach. Geodesy and Geodynamics, 11(1), 56-63. doi: 10.1016/j.geog.2019.07.006.

[31] Soehaimi A, Novico F, Ridwan M, Frederik MC. 2023. Seismotectonic and probabilistic seismic hazard of Sunda Strait region. EGUsphere [preprint]. doi: 10.5194/egusphere-2023-423.

[32] Sotiriadis D, Margaris B, Klimis N, Dokas IM. 2023. Seismic hazard in Greece: A comparative study for the region of east Macedonia and Thrace. GeoHazards, 4(3), 239-266. doi: 10.3390/geohazards4030014.

[33] Stober I, Bucher K. 2021. Geothermal Energy: From Theoretical Models to Exploration and Development. Cham, Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-71685-1.

[34] Tyagunov S, Abakanov T, Abdrakhmatov K, Begaliev UT. 2012. Seismic risk assessment in the countries of Central Asia. In: Seismic Risk Assessment in the Countries of Central Asia, International Conference on "Complexity in Earthquake Dynamics: From Nonlinearity to Earthquake Prediction and Seismic Stability". Nauka. doi: 10.13140/2.1.2443.5207.

[35] UNECE. 2018. Country profiles on the housing sector: Republic of Kazakhstan. https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/CP_Kazakhstan_web.ENG_.pdf.

[36] van Hinsbergen DJJ, Torsvik TH, Schmid SM, Maţenco LC, Maffione M, Vissers RLM, Gürer D, Spakman W. 2020. Orogenic architecture of the Mediterranean region and kinematic reconstruction of its tectonic evolution since the Triassic. Gondwana Research, 81, 79-229. doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2019.07.009.

[37] Wang WX, Jing LZ, Shao YX, Wang ZJ, Han LF, Shen XW, Qin KX, Gao YP, Yao WQ, Hu GM, Zeng XY, Liu XL, Wang W, Cui FZ, Liu ZJ, Li JY, Tu HW. 2023. Mapping of soil liquefaction associated with the 2021 mW 7. 4 Maduo (madoi) earthquake based on the UAV photogrammetry technology. Remote Sensing, 15(4), 1032. doi: 10.3390/rs15041032.

[38] Yang PT, Sun XL, Liu DY, He ZT, Li YS. 2021. Hydrochemical characteristics of groundwater at the epicenter of the 2021 Biru M6. 1 earthquake in central Tibet. Water, 13(21), 3111. doi: 10.3390/w13213111.

[39] Yetirmishli G, Kazimova S. 2019. Modeling of the Earth's crust of the Greater Caucasus by seismic tomography. In: Abstracts of the First Eurasian Conference "Risk - 2019". Vugar Aliyev, 117.

[40] Zhanabayeva A, Moon SW, Ocheme JI, Shokbarov Y, Khomyakov V, Kim J, Satyanaga A. 2023. Comparative analysis of seismic design codes for shallow foundations adhering to the kazakhstani and European approaches. Sustainability, 15(1), 615. doi: 10.3390/su15010615.