Advanced search

Calibration Of Regional Vulnerability Functions By Applying Earthquake Events Database

Full Text:


The paper describes the structure and content of the Information System database containing information on earthquake events, which is developed and supported within the framework of computer support for the EMERCOM of the Russian Federation. The database is assigned to provide analytical support for decision making in case of an emergency situation, including tools for mathematical simulation of hazardous excitation, the response of elements at risk to excitation and loss generation. The calibration procedure of the earthquake vulnerability functions for buildings and structures using the database with descriptions of events is presented. The calibrated functions of earthquake vulnerability for buildings of different types are applied to provide an acceptable accuracy of situational assessments for the case of a strong earthquake. The examples of earthquake damage estimations for the test site in Siberia showed that region-specific parameters in the vulnerability functions yield more reliable results to estimate possible damage and losses due to a large earthquake. For Irkutsk City, the estimates of the numbers of heavily damaged and completely collapsed buildings obtained when using different sets of parameters for vulnerability functions differ by 30%. Such difference in damage estimates can significantly affect the plans for rescue and recovery operations. The conclusion is made about the advantage of the calibrated functions application for near real-time damage and loss assessment due to strong earthquakes in order to ensure population safety and territory sustainable development.

About the Authors

Nina I. Frolova
Institute of Environmental Geosciences, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Ulansky per. 13, Moscow, 101000

Valery I. Larionov
Institute of Environmental Geosciences, Russian Academy of Sciences; Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Russian Federation

Ulansky per. 13, Moscow, 101000

2-nd Baumanskaya, 5, Moscow, 105005

Jean Bonnin
Institut de Physique du Globe, University of Strasbourg
Strasbourg F-67084

Sergey P. Sushchev
Extreme Situations Research Center
Russian Federation
Vyatskaya str. 35, Moscow, 127015

Alexander N. Ugarov
Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Russian Federation
2-nd Baumanskaya, 5, Moscow, 105005


1. Aleksandrov A., Larionov V., Sushchev S. (2019). Technological and natural risk analysis and management. Manuel. Moscow: Bauman Press Publ (in Russian).

2. Berzhinski Yu. (2001). A regional macroseismic scale for the Baikal area. An abstract of the dissertation for candidate of geological and mineralogical sciences. Irkutsk (in Russian).

3. Berzhinski Yu., Berzhinskaya L., Ivankina L., Ordynskaya A., Radziminovich Ya. and Chernykh E. (2008). Monitoring the Condition of Natural and Technical Systems. The Baikal Earthquake of August 27, 2008. Earthquake Resistant Design. Safety of Structures, 6, 53-57 (in Russian).

4. Berzhinskaya L. and Berzhinski Yu. (2009). Methods for inventory of buildings in seismic regions. Voprosy Inzhenernoi Seismologii. ISSN 0132-2826. 36(2), 57-69 (in Russian).

5. Berzhinski Yu., Ordynskaya A., Gladkov A., Lunina O., Berzhinskaya L., Radziminovich N., Radziminovich Ya., Imaev V., Smekalin O. and Chipizubov A. (2009). An experience in the use of the ESI 2007 scale for estimating the intensity of shaking due to the Kultuk earthquake of August 27, 2008 in the southern Baikal region. Voprosy Inzhenernoi Seismologii, 36(3), 5-26 (in Russian).

6. Braga F., Dolce M. and Liberatore D. (1982). A statistical study on damaged buildings and an ensuing review of the MSK-76 scale. In: Proc. of the Seventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, 431-450.

7. Boore D., Joyner W. and Fumal T. (1993). Estimation of response spectra and peak accelerations from western North American earthquakes: an interim report. U.S. Geological Open-file Report, 93-509.

8. Calvi G., Pinho R., Magenes G., Bommer J., Restrepo-Vélez L. and Crowley H. (2006). Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 43(3), 75-104.

9. Di Pasquale G., Orsini G. and Romeo R. (2005). New developments in seismic risk assessment in Italy. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 3(1), 101-128.

10. European Macroseismic Scale 1992: (up-dated MSKscale). (1993). Cahier du Centre Europeen de Geodynamique et de Seismologie, vol. 7, G.Grunthal (Ed.).

11. Frolova N., Larionov V., Bonnin J. (2011). Earthquake casualties estimations in emergency mode. In: Spence R. et al (eds) Human casualties in earthquakes: progress in modelling and mitigation, advances in natural and technological hazards research, 29. Springer, 107-123, DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9455-1_8.

12. Frolova N., Ugarov A. (2018). Knowledge base about past earthquakes consequences as a tool to increase the reliability of near real time loss estimation. Geoekologiya, 37, 3-20, DOI: 10.1134/S0869780318060017-37.

13. Frolova N., Gabsatarova I., Petrova N., Ugarov A., and Malaeva N. (2019). Influence of shaking intensity attenuation peculiarities on reliability of earthquake loss estimation in emergency mode. Geoekologiya, 37, 23–37, DOI: 10.31857/S0869-78092019523-37.

14. Frolova N., Larionov V., Bonnin J., Suchshev S., Ugarov A., and Malaeva N. (2020). Impact database application for natural and technological risk management. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 95-106, DOI: 10.5194/nhess-20-95-2020.

15. Goncharov S., Frolova N. (2011). Casualty Estimation due to Earthquakes: Injury Structure and Dynamics. In: Spence R et al (eds) Human casualties in earthquakes: progress in modelling and mitigation, advances in natural and technological hazards research, 29. Springer, 142- 149, DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9455-1_10.

16. Izmalkov V. (2017a). Development of AIUS RSCHS as a dynamic automated system. Civ. Secur. Technol., 14, 26-31.

17. Izmalkov V. (2017b). Automated Information Management System of The Russian Unified Emergency Prevention and Response System AIUS RSCHS-2030: Analysis of its Operating Experience and Further Development Priorities. Civ. Secur. Technol., 14, 38-42.

18. Kachanov S., Nekhoroshev S. and Popov A. (2011). Decision support information technology in the case of emergencies: AIUS RSCHS: yesterday, today, tomorrow. Moscow: Delovoj Ekspress Publ., ISBN 978-5-93970-064-1, 400.

19. Kachanov S., Ageev S., Kovtun O., Belyaeva I., Lukina Y. and Chernov V. (2014). Automated Control System of a Unified System of Professional Training for the Russian Emergencies Ministry. Civ. Secur. Technol., 11, 16-21.

20. Khromovskikh V., Delyanskiy E., Smekalin O. (1996). Paleoseismogeology at a new stage of development. Geophysical research in Eastern Siberia at the turn of the XXI century. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 99-101 (in Russian).

21. Larionov V., Frolova N., Ugarov A. (2000). Methodological Approaches for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment and their Application for Near Real Time Loss Assessment due to Strong Earthquakes In: Proc. of All-Russian Conference «RISK-2000», Moscow: Publishing House «Ankil», 132-135.

22. Larionov V., Frolova N. (2003a). Peculiarities of seismic vulnerability estimations. In book: Natural Hazards in Russia, volume 6: Natural Risks Assessment and Management, Moscow: Publishing House «Kruk», 120-131.

23. Larionov V., Sushchev S., Ugarov A., Frolova N. (2003b). Seismic risk assessment with GIS-technology application. In book: Natural Hazards in Russia, volume 6: Natural Risks Assessment and Management, Moscow: Publishing House «Kruk», 209-231.

24. Larionov V., Frolova N., Ugarov A., Sushchev S., Kozlov M., Malaeva N., Barskaya T. (2017). Seismic Risk Assessment. Geoekologiya, 2, 11-26 (in Russian).

25. Lumantarna E., Lam N., Tsang H., Wilson J., Gad E., and Goldsworthy Y. (2014). Review of Methodologies for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings. In: Proc. Of Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Conference, 21-23, Lorne, Victoria.

26. Martel R. (1964). Earthquake damage to type III buildings in Long Beach, 1933. Earthquake Investigations in the western United States, 1931–1964, Publication 41-2, U.S. Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, DC.

27. Martins L., Silva V. (2018). A global database of vulnerability models for seismic risk assessment. In: Proc. Of 16th European conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessaloniki,

28. Radziminovich Ya. (2003). Assessment of seismic risk in Irkutsk City. Dissertation. Irkutsk: IZK, 25.00.10, 160.

29. Shebalin N. (1968). Procedures of engineering seismological data application for seismic zoning. In: Seismic zoning of the USSR, Moscow: Nauka, 95-121 (in Russian).

30. Shebalin, N. (1977). Reference earthquakes and macroseismic field equations. In: New catalogue of strong earthquakes for the USSR territory from ancient times till 1975. Moscow: Nauka, 20-30 (in Russian).

31. Shebalin N., Ershov I., Gekhman A., and Shestoperov G. (1986). Development of improved version of seismic intensity scale (MMSK-86) on the bases of MSK-64 scale and scale of Joint Council on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering – 73. Report on scientific research study within the Federal Program 0.74.03, number of state registration 01814003271, Joint Council on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, Russian Federation.

32. Sherman S., Berzhinski Yu., Pavlenov V. and Aptikaev F. (2003). Regional scales of seismic intensity. Novosibirsk: SO RAN, filial «Geo».

33. Spence R., Coburn A.W., Pomonis A. (1992). Correlation of ground motion with building damage: The Definition of a New DamageBased Seismic Intensity Scale. In: Proc. of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1, 551-556.

34. Sushchev S., Larionov V., Frolova N. (2010). Seismic Risk Assessment and Management with Extremum System Application. In: Proc. Of XV international conference «Problems of population and territory protection against emergencies». Moscow: VNII GOChS, 327-345.

35. Ulomov V., Shumilina L. (1999). Set of maps OSR-97-A, B, C of review seismic zoning of the Russian Federation territory – OSR-97. Scale 1:8 000 000. Explanatory note and list of cities and settlements located in earthquake prone areas. Moscow: OIFZ Publ., 57 (in Russian).

36. Xin D., Daniell J., Wenzel F. (2019). Review of fragility analyses for major building types in China with new implications for intensity-PGA relation development. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, DOI: 10.5194/nhess-2019-195.

37. Whitman R. (1973). Damage probability matrices for prototype buildings, Department of Civil Engineering Research Report R73 – 57, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Massachusetts.

38. Yepes-Estrada C., Silva V., Crowley H. (2014). GEM Vulnerability Database for the Openquakeplatform. In: Proc. of the Second European conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul.

39. Zaalishvili V., Burdzieva O., Kanukov A. and Melkov D. (2019). Seismic Risk of Modern City. The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 13, 308-318, DOI: 10.2174/1874836801913010308.

40. (2019). SP 322.1325800.2017 Buildings and structures in seismic region. Rules of inspection of consequences of the earthquake, in force since May 4, 2018 (in Russian).

41. (2012). Earthquake Environmental Effects, intensity and seismic hazard assessment: the ESI intensity scale and the EEE Catalogue.

For citation:

Frolova N.I., Larionov V.I., Bonnin J., Sushchev S.P., Ugarov A.N. Calibration Of Regional Vulnerability Functions By Applying Earthquake Events Database. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2020;13(4):54-64.

Views: 35

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2071-9388 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1565 (Online)