Seismic Risk Assessment for the Infrastructure in the Regions Adjacent to the Russian Federation Baikal–amur Mainline Based on the Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1990223/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Seismic Risk Assessment for the Infrastructure in the Regions Adjacent to the Russian Federation Baikal–amur Mainline Based on the Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1990223/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

The objective of the analysis is to evaluate, for a period of 50 years, the 10%, 5% and 1% probability of exceedance of seismic events in terms of loss in performance of infrastructure in the regions adjacent to the Russian Federation Baikal–Amur Mainline and Trans–Siberian Railway. In particular, we use earthquake data compiled at the Baikal Division of the Russian Geophysical Survey, which provides sufficiently complete earthquake determinations of M = 2.5 or larger for the period 1994–2019 for mapping the USLE coefficients at the seismically active cells of a regular grid. Based on these estimates, we present maps of the maximum expected magnitude in about 500, 1000 and 5000 years. Having described an anisotropic seismic effect model of seismic sites in the region, we conclude by characterizing the seismic hazard in traditional macroseismic intensity terms and estimating the associated seismic risk to infrastructures.

seismic hazard

seismic risk

macroseismic intensity

Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes (USLE)

Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (NDSHA)

Baikal-Amur Mainline

Trans-Siberian Railway

Seismic hazard and risk assessment requires an adequate understanding of the earthquake distribution in magnitude, space, and time ranges. Lacking data for a period of several thousand years makes a probabilistic approach to estimating the recurrence time of hazardous ground shaking unreliable and, as a matter of fact, misleading. We highlight the importance of adequate rescaling of the number of earthquakes of different size when you zoom or expand the analysis to a smaller or larger volume, which is the critical issue for reliable seismic hazard assessment.

Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (NDSHA, Fäh et al. 1993; Panza et al. 2001), which dates back to the turn of the millennium, provides an alternative to the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) approach. It represents the innovative scenario- and physics-based multidisciplinary approach for the evaluation of seismic hazard, proven reliable by twenty years of experiments in many countries worldwide.

Evidently, the results of NDSHA applications surpass the widespread PSHA results by taking advantage of a synergy between presently available applications and research − (i) pattern recognition of earthquake prone areas (Kossobokov and Soloviev 2018; Gorshkov and Novikova 2018), (ii) intermediate-term earthquake prediction of different spatial accuracy (Healy et al, 1992), (iii) scenario-based seismic hazard analysis (Parvez et al. 2017), (iv) maximum credible seismic input method (Crespi et al. 2020), (v) Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes (USLE, Nekrasova and Kossobokov 2002), (vi) geodetic data analysis of GPS, GSSN and other reliable determinations (Kossobokov et al. 2022) and (vii) discrete mathematical analysis (Gvishiani et al. 2008).

Following Bak et al. (2002) the generalization of the Gutenberg–Richter recurrence relation that accounts for naturally fractal properties of earthquake origination and distribution in space, is denoted as Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes, USLE. By applying USLE to evident patterns of distributed seismic activity one can demonstrate that the traditional estimations of seismic risk for cities and urban agglomerations are usually underestimated. In fact, any estimate of seismic hazard rate (e.g., N(M)) depends on the size of the territory that is used for averaging and, therefore, may differ dramatically when scaled down to the proportion of the area of interest. For example, one of the very first practical conclusions drawn from USLE: Kossobokov and Mazhkenov (1988; 1994) demonstrated that in the case of the Lake Baikal region with an area of 1,500,000 km² and C = 1.25, the inclusion of aseismic areas leads to underestimation of widespread seismic activity measure A₁₀ in 1000 km² by a factor of 15, and to its overestimation by a factor greater than 2 when a characteristic of seismic activity over an area of 1000 km² is computed for a grid cell of 10 km × 10 km. The update-to-date modification of the algorithm of the USLE coefficient estimations contribute to the new design of the seismic hazard and risk evaluation in the frames of the Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (NDSHA).

Transportation infrastructures are complex systems of various connected components like bridges, roads, railroads and tunnels. Due to their spatial extent, they are exposed to various kinds of natural hazards such as earthquakes, tsunami, landslides, liquefaction, flooding etc. Experience from past disastrous events shows that transportation infrastructures are quite vulnerable due to the lack of redundancy, the lengthy repair time, the rerouting difficulties or the cascading failures and interdependencies. The suffered of railroad cites variance from temporary speed restrictions to heavy damage with repairing or failure requiring new construction or major rehabilitation. In case of spatially distributed network systems under natural hazards, its need to be concerning that vulnerability is determined by not only the hazard intensity but also the geography, topology and network flow, which includes the infrastructure itself (Hu et al. 2019). Therefore, in terms of resilience it is important to recognize and quantify the risks and global losses associated with the potential damage of transportation systems and to establish efficient risk mitigation strategies. These include, among others, enhancement of emergency preparedness, strengthening of existing structures and improvements to recovery planning.

In this paper we describe the methodology of multi-scale analysis of seismic recurrence along with the algorithm for estimating scaling coefficients of USLE, and then apply it to evaluating seismic hazard and risks to regions adjacent to the Russian Federation Baikal–Amur Mainline (BAM) and the Trans–Siberian Railway (TSR). The preliminary evaluation of seismic hazard for 10-km segments of BAM and TSR and 1-km segments of the major regional pipeline in traditional terms of maximum expected magnitude in about 50, 1000, and 5000 years based on USLE, pattern recognition of earthquake-prone areas, and an isotropic model of macroseismic intensity distribution is presented in (Kossobokov and Nekrasova 2021). Here we provide a revision taking into account the anisotropic propagation model and more careful sampling of parameters and data in estimating USLE coefficients.

Finally we evaluate the difference in USLE seismic hazard assessment maps and PSHA maps for the territory of the Lake Baikal region. Specifically, the up-todate official General Seismic Zoning maps (version GSZ-2016) are used for comparison. The seismic hazard maps for building codes and regulations beginning with the 1997 official maps (version GSZ-97), which contributed to the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) (Giardini 1999; Ulomov and Shumilina 1999) and its more recent generations GSZ-2010, GSZ-2012, GSZ-2014, GSZ-2015, GSZ-2016 based on the same PSHA methodology (Ulomov 2007) were prepared and modified by a large group of Russian scientists. The comparison of two most recent versions GSZ-2015 and GSZ-2016, as well as a general description of the current methodology, mathematical and computational apparatus, is given in (Zavyalov et al. 2019).

The multiscale analysis involved in evaluation of the USLE coefficients at a given site combines recurrences for earthquakes obtained from the enclosed areas of different size, in order to get enough statistics on larger magnitude shocks from larger surrounding territories for a reliable confident estimation of scaling.

To obtain a seismic risk evaluation based on the concept of the USLE methodology, the following steps are performed: a) characterisation of seismic sources; b) regional seismic effect modelling; c) providing seismic hazard maps; d) obtaining seismic risk estimations for infrastructure based on seismic hazard maps and the end-user hazard mitigation strategy. The following is a description of the algorithm for each of the above steps.

A preliminary data examination should be provided. It takes into account the representative nature and temporal completeness of the earthquake catalog data, regional patterns of the distribution of active faults, parameters of the algorithm for determining the USLE coefficients and options for processing the system of active faults.

Characterization of seismic sources.

The regional seismic sources are characterised by a finite set of earthquake-prone cells {c_i} of linear dimension L with expected annual number of earthquakes N(M, L). Nekrasova et al. (2015) elaborately described the Scaling Coefficients Estimation (SCE) algorithm (Nekrasova and Kossobokov 2002), which is a modified version of its prototype (Kossobokov and Mazhkenov 1988). For each c_{i ,} with reliable USLE coefficients estimation of N(M, L) can be obtained as

log ₁₀ N (M, L) = A + B (M₀ − M) + Clog₁₀L (1)

where A − corresponds to the logarithmic estimate of seismic activity at magnitude M₀, normalized to a unit area of 1° × 1° and a unit time of one year, B − the coefficient of magnitude balance, analogous to the b-value of the classical Gutenberg-Richter relationship (Gutenberg and Richter 1954), and C − the fractal dimension of the carrier of earthquake epicenters.

The USLE coefficients are used for estimation of the maximum magnitude Mmax expected with a p% chance of exceedance in T years following the procedures suggested in (Parvez et al., 2014). Specifically, for each c_i we apply formula (1) to calculate the expected numbers of events from magnitude ranges M_k in T-years and then find the magnitude Mmax = max{ M_k | T×N (M_k, L) ≥ p% }.

The achieved values of Mmax at the entire set of grid points { c_i } are used to compile a set of pairs { (c_i, M_i) } for a design of the expected seismic effect in the region considered in terms of macroseismic intensity.

Seismic effect modelling

To describe the seismic effect from each of the earthquake-prone cells c_i, we use a model of anisotropic distribution of the macroseismic intensity outside the earthquake source zone (Nekrasova and Kossobokov 2022). In particular, for each pair (c_i, M_i) we estimate an elliptical earthquake source zone with semi-axes A(M) = ½×10 ^{α + βM} and B(M) = ½×10 ^{γ + δ M} where M = M_i and α, β, γ, δ are the constants characterizing typical length and width of the source zone. The constants should be regional, if available, or determined by independent studies in tectonically similar region elsewhere, e.g., (Wells and Coppersmith 1994). The direction of the elliptical shape angle φ is measured from the dominant strike ψ of active faults in the Earth's crust system, defined for the site around c_i.

Following Shebalin (1968) we use here the empirical estimate of macroseismic intensity I at distance Δ from of an earthquake epicenter of magnitude M originated at depth h:

$$I=b \times M - \nu \times {\log _{10}}\sqrt {{\Delta ^2}+{h^2}} +c$$

where b, v and c are the empirically estimated regional constants.

We assume that seismic waves propagate uniformly from the boundary of the earthquake source zone, so that outside it, macroseismic intensity follows Eq. (3):

I _e(M, Δ, h, φ, α, β, γ, δ) = I(M, A(M) + Δr(M, φ), h) (3),

where Δr(M, φ) is the minimum distance from the point (Δ × cosφ, Δ × sinφ) to the boundary of the source zone, namely, to the ellipse with semi-axes A(M_i) and B(M_i) centered at c_i, while within the earthquake source zone -

Ie(M_i, Δ, h, φ, α, β, γ, δ) = RAND(I(M_i, A(M), h), I(M_i, 0, h)) (4)

- is randomly distributed from I(M_i, A(M), h) to I(M_i, 0, h). Note that to comply with a qualitative characterization of macroseismic intensity the value of I_e is rounded to the nearest semi-integer, e.g., 7.36 to VII-VIII, 10.12 to X, etc.

We determine the semi-axis A(M_i) as the large one which holds for magnitudes M ≥ 4.9.

Providing Seismic hazard map(s)

The procedure of macroseismic intensity zoning is performed as a definition of boundaries created by merging all areas with the same semi-integer value of macroseismic intensity propagated from seismic source zones with Mmax. The macroseismic intensity zones from one source are determined using equations (3, 4) described in the previous paragraph.

Providing the seismic risk for infrastructure objects

Any kind of risk estimates results from a convolution of the hazard with the exposed object under consideration along with its vulnerability

R(g) = H(g) ⊗ O(g) ⊗ V(O(g)),

where H(g) is natural hazard at location g, O(g) is the exposure of objects at risk at g, and V(O) is the vulnerability of objects at risk. The location g, convolution operator ⊗ and V(O) concerned depend on each certain risk estimation task determined by the end-user.

We described in detail the USLE coefficient estimation based on the actual Lake Baikal region data in (Nekrasova and Kossobokov 2022). Specifically, the original online version of the Baikal Division of the Geophysical Survey, Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences catalog data for magnitudes equal to or more than 2.6 (energy class K ≥ 8.6, accepted in catalog homepage) for the period 1994–2019 and within 48° – 58°N and 99° – 122°E were used for compiling the maps of the USLE coefficients. The calculations by the SCE algorithm (Nekrasova et al. 2015) performed using the hierarchy of enclosed square cells with linear sizes of 2°, 1°, 1/2°, 1/4° and 1/8° for 1813 active cells of a regular grid with an annual empirical probability value of seismic events of magnitude 2.6 (K = 8 or larger greater than 0.0001 and the modified Eq. (1) normalized to recurrence of strong magnitude 6.0 earthquakes, i.e. M₀ = 6.0.

With the same space-time-magnitude volume as in (Nekrasova and Kossobokov 2022) we also modified the number of intervals into which the magnitude range is subdivided. Using a magnitude step of 0.32 as the SCE algorithm parameter, we obtained reliable USLE coefficient estimates for 1716 cells, while the previously used subdivision of the magnitude scale into equal quarters of a unit allowed us to map only 1460 cells and yielded a clear "white spot" (lack) of the USLE determination values in the central part of the Lake Baikal. The modified fragmentation of the magnitude MLH scale helps avoiding the bias originated by the two-step round off on conversion of the above-mentioned initial determination of the energy class K in the regional catalog to the magnitude MLH of an earthquake. Figure 1 shows the empirical density distributions of the A, B and C coefficients obtained using the adjusted SCE parameters, as well as distributions of their errors of determination σ_A, σ_B and σ_c. The σ-values are under 0.05 for coefficients B and C and less than 0.08 for coefficient A.

The grey areas in Fig. 1 mark the regional empirical density distributions of the USLE coefficients estimated based on the data from 1965 to 1998 and a more robust hierarchy of square boxes with linear size from 8° down to 1/2° (Nekrasova and Kossobokov 2006). The comparison shows that distributions of A and C based on different hierarchy are within the same ranges and not affected by the magnitude steps parameter changes. While the B coefficient distribution might be strongly affected by using dM = 0.32 SCE parameter or by a change of seismic regime in the Lake Baikal region. The single sharp maximum distribution at 0.9 characterise the actual distribution of the B coefficient values in 1994–2019.

Figure 2 shows the spatial distributions of the A, B, and C coefficients. Figure 2A shows that the Baikal rift can be characterized as a passage from relatively low values of A in the western part (from one event with M = 6 in 1000 years), transient values of A ranges from − 2 to -2.5 in the central part and maximum values of A (up to -1.5, which corresponds to three earthquakes with magnitude 6.0 in 100 years) in the western part. The "white spot" zone of the SCE determinations in (Nekrasova and Kossobokov 2022) with the modified dM = 0.32 is characterised with the values of the A coefficient about − 3 (Fig. 3A), the values of B about 0.9, which widespread from the Eastern Sayan Mountains to the Muya Ranges (Fig. 2B), and relatively high values from 1 to 1.2 of C (Fig. 2C).

We use the “Dominant directions of the local active fault system estimation” (DDLAFS) plugin (Emelyanov and Nekrasova 2022) to obtained the set of azimuths ψ₁, ψ₂, and ψ₃ with the empirical probabilities p₁, p₂, and p₃ for the dominant directions of the Lake Baikal region faults reported in Active Faults of Eurasia Database (Bachmanov et al. 2017; http://neotec.ginras.ru/database.html). Figure 3 shows approximately 2500 active faults in the Lake Baikal Region.

We used free vector and raster map data at 1:10,000,000 available from Natural Earth (https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cultural-vectors/railroads/) for tracing the two mainlines BAM and TSR under study. Here we consider mainlines only; the railway network parts of the second or less relevance factor, according to the database, are not included in this analysis.

Seismic hazard maps for the Lake Baikal region

We present the seismic hazard maps for Lake Baikal Region in terms of Mmax at earthquake-prone cells of the regular 1/8°×1/8° grid in 50 years (Fig. 4). Specifically, we calculate the expected number of earthquakes from the magnitude range Mj in 50 years, and then find the maximum magnitude, Mmax, with the expected number 50 × N(Mmax, L) surpassing the selected chance of exceedance (in %). The objective of the analysis is to evaluate, with for a period of 50 years, and the 10%, 5% and 1% of probability of damaging seismic events for the purposes of assessing loss in performance of networks.

Figure 4 shows the seismic hazard maps obtained by USLE approach (Nekrasova et al. 2015, Nekrasova et al. 2020) for the Lake Baikal Region in terms of Mmax, at earthquake-prone cells of the regular 1/8°×1/8° grid in 50 years with 10%, 5% and 1% chance of exceedance.

Figure 5 shows the Mmax graphs. At the level of 10% probability of exceedance almost 66% of the total 1716 cells featured by magnitude 5.0 or more and about 16% by magnitude6.0 or more. According to Fig. 4a the maximum values of Mmax ≥ 6.0 extend from the northern part of the Lake Baikal rift up to the area of the Ml 7.6 Muya earthquake on June 27, 1957. The area of South Yakutia, located on the north-eastern edge of the regional seismic network and the study region is another high-risk place further to the north-east. Similar pattern of the most seismically hazardous areas is observed in Fig. 4b, c. Figure 4b shows about 1% of the cells with Mmax ≥ 6.6, 37% and 84% – with Mmax ≥ 6.0 and 5.0, respectively, and only 16% – with Mmax < 5.0. Figure 4c reveals almost 8% of cells with Mmax ≥ 7.2, 35% – with 6.0 ≤ Mmax < 7.2, and 21% – with Mmax < 6.0.

We prepared the set of active faults dominant directions {ψ_i} at each of 1716 cells of reliable determination of the USLE coefficients. The direction ψ_i is defined as the azimuth of the maximum empirical probability determined by making use of the number of active fault azimuths in non-overlapping 10-degree sectors of a 30-km radius circle centered c_i Fig. 6 demonstrates the {ψ_i} directions by 60 km lines centered at {c_i} and color-coded in respect to M_max distribution in Fig. 4a.

The set of triplets { (c_i, M_i, ψ_i) } allows us to design the elliptical seismic source zones for the Lake Baikal region and apply equations (3, 4) with the regional constants b = 1.5, ν = 4.0, c = 4.0 to comply with the Russian building codes and recommendations (GOST R 57546 − 2017, Appendix K, Table K). Note the results presented here are for demonstration purposes only and do not account for some very important issues of reliable seismic hazard and risk assessment for specific infrastructure facilities. We estimate macroseismic intensity fields for intensity classes VI, VII, and VIII or larger and use the average coefficients α=-2.29, β = 0.57, γ=-1.17, δ = 0.34 from (Wells and Coppersmith 1994) to describe the elliptical seismic source zones of the expected potentially destructive earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or larger. This resulted in considering 1136, 1448 and 1705 cells with expected 10%, 5% and 1% of exceedance of Mmax in 50 years.

Figure 7 demonstrates the USLE based seismic hazard maps for 10%, 5% and 1% probability of exceedance in 50 years in terms of macroseismic intensity VI, VII and VIII or larger.

Seismic Risk for infrastructure exposures adjacent to the Baikal–Amur Mainline and Trans–Siberian Railway

We used arbitrary units of risk proportional to the macroseismic intensity to evaluate the loss in performance of infrastructure in the regions adjacent to BAM and TSR within the USLE-based seismic hazard maps (Fig. 7). Figure 8 shows the model seismic risk obtained for each 10-km segment of BAM and TSR, which statistics are summarized in Table 1.

The risk evaluation results show that BAM can have risk unit of VIII or larger for each of the obtained seismic hazard maps, while a risk that large for TSR appears only in case of 1% chance of exceedance in 50 years (Fig. 8c). Roughly the same number (84, 99 and 100) of TSR segments are at risk of VI units in each of the three seismic hazard maps, while the risk of VII units increases dramatically from 9 to 58, and then to 140 10-km segments for the 10%, 5% and 1% probability of exceedance in 50 years, correspondingly.

Table 1

Summary of the computed seismic risk (in arbitrary units) for each of the 10-km TSR and BAM adjacent segments for 10%, 5% and 1% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
a.u.	Number of potentially affected segments
	BAM	TSR	BAM	TSR	BAM	TSR
	10% of exceedance		5% of exceedance		1% of exceedance
VI	16	84	18	99	28	100
VII	63	9	18	58	20	140
VIII	42	-	85	-	102	75

We do not discuss in additional detail the risk that needs to take into account the soil conditions at each site as well as the construction located along each potentially affected segment, showing only the preliminary very crude estimate of risk value proportional to the expected maximum macroseismic intensity.

We use the rough digitized copy of the latest version of the Russian General Seismic Zoning (GSZ-2016) to compare it with the USLE-based seismic hazard maps in terms of macroseismic intensity for the Lake Baikal Region. The GSZ-2016 maps of three macroseismic intensity classes VI, VII, and VIII or larger for 50 years and 10%, 5% and 1% probability of exceedance are presented in Figs. 9A, 9B and 9C, correspondingly, while isolines of seismic hazard based on the USLE approach for the same classes of macroseismic intensity and the same levels of probability are added on top the maps as color-coded lines (violet solid line for VIII or larger, blue dashed line for VII, and yellow thin solid line for VI).

Table 2 sums up a comparison of the area occupied by intensities VI+, VII+, and VIII + ranges on the USLE-based approach and GSZ-2016 maps for the Lake Baikal region within the boundaries of Russian Federation. The percentages are given for the total area of 1,540,199 km² all assigned to the VI + intensity zone on the GSZ-2016/C map. Note that VIII + class includes the highest classes of the macroseismic intensity (IX – XII).

Table 2

The Lake Baikal region macroseismic intensity area for a period of 50 years with 10%, 5% and 1% probability of exceedance (in percent to the total area within the borders of Russian Federation).
I class	USLE	GSZ-2016/A	USLE	GSZ-2016/B	USLE	GSZ-2016/C
I class	10% of exceedance		5% of exceedance		1% of exceedance
VI+	32.3	87.2	42.5	91.9	72.5	100.0
VII+	15.2	63.8	23.1	76.6	48.9	90.3
VIII+	3.8	31.1	16.0	45.1	24.9	71.4

We verified the seismic hazard maps with the data from the unified earthquake catalog compiled by Ulomov and Medvedeva (2014) for general seismic zoning of the territory of the Russian Federation. The catalog contains 124 earthquakes of magnitude MLH ≥ 5.5 that occurred from − 3000 B.C. to 2013 A.D. in Lake Baikal region. The MLH 6.4 (Mw 6.3) earthquake at some 10 km to the north of Baykal’sk is the last one considered. All but one epicenter (i.e. the one attributed to the MLH 6.5 earthquake in May 1827 located at 58 N and 108.5 E) fall inside the area of expected strong ground shaking on the territory of the Russian Federation (Fig. 10). Specifically, 95 earthquakes (77% of the total 124 earthquakes) are located in the area of expected intensity VIII, 22 (18%) – in area of intensity VII, and only 6 (5%) within the area of intensity VI.

Using the USLE approach (Nekrasova et al. 2015, Kossobokov and Nekrasova 2018a, 2018b, present study) the regional parameters of the USLE can provide a good approximation of the seismic hazard map in terms of expected maximum magnitude earthquake, macroseismic intensity, peak ground acceleration and other parameters of ground shaking for the selected time interval and fixed probability of exceedance level. The seismic risk for the different types of object with the point, linear or planar spatial shapes could be estimated for preliminary basic consideration and better understanding by decision makers.

The USLE estimations (although limited by seismic data available) addressing realistic and practical kinds of seismic risks should involve professional interpretation by experts in earthquake engineering, social sciences and economics, which is not yet done. The general level of underestimation of seismic effect rates at exposures is too large to be ignored in seismic risk and earthquake loss evaluations necessary for knowledgeable disaster prevention and mitigation.

The USLE suggests a possibility to improve Exposure of different objects at Risk by relocating them to a safer place. Vulnerability of an object at Risk could be reduced by a knowledgeable choice of appropriate hazard reduction measures, either in advance of their design or in the case of an earthquake prediction alert, after simulating a comprehensive collection of earthquake scenarios of realistically distributed sizes, mechanisms, and locations.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Geophysical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences team for providing the digitized version of the GSZ-2016 maps.

Data availability statement

Data sets from public sources available in January 2022 were analysed in this study. The earthquake datasets used in this study are published online by Baikal Division of the Geophysical Survey, Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Active Faults of Eurasia Database analyse in the manuscript is reported online by the Laboratory of Neotectonics and Recent Geodynamics of the Geological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Specialized catalog of earthquakes for general seismic zoning of the territory of the Russian Federation is published online by Sсhmidt institute of Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The vector and raster maps of railroads are available for free download from Natural Earth at www.naturalearthdata.com.

Funding

VK and AN carried out their parts of the presented research within the framework of the Russian State Task of Scientific Research Works on “Seismic hazard assessment, development and testing of earthquake prediction methods” (No. 0143-2019-0006) IEPT RAS and AN carried out the presented research with additional support of the State Task of the Russian Federation of the Schmidt Institute of Earth Physics RAS.

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author contributions

AN performed preliminary data analysis, USLE coefficients computations, active faults system analysis and SH maps calculations. Both AN and VK collaborated on data interpretation and manuscript write up.

Bachmanov D.M., Kozhurin A.I., Trifonov V.G. (2017) The Active Faults of Eurasia Database. Geodynamics and Tectonophysics 8 (4): 711–736; DOI 10.5800/GT-2017-8-4-0314.
Baikal Division of the Geophysical Survey, Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Homepage: http://www.seis-bykl.ru/modules.php?name=Data&da=1. Last accessed 2020/12/10.
Bak P, Christensen K, Danon L, Scanlon T (2002) Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes. Phys Rev Lett 88:178501–178504.
Crespi M, Kossobokov V, Peresan A, Panza GF (2020) The Integration between Seismology and Geodesy for Intermediate-Term Narrow-Range Earthquake Prediction according to NDSHA. In: Panza G, Kossobokov V, De Vivo B, Laor E (Eds) Earthquakes and Sustainable Infrastructure: neo-deterministic (NDSHA) approach guarantees prevention rather than cure, Elsevier. ISBN: 9780128235034, 97-112. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-823503-4.00003-8.
Emelyanov I., Nekrasova A. (2022) DDLAFS - QGIS plugin for dominant directions of the local active fault system estimation, VI All-Russian Conference with international participation, Information Technologies for Earth Sciences and Digitalization in Geology and Mining, ITES-2022, Vladivostok (Russia), October 3-7, 2022.
Fäh, D., Iodice, C., Suhadolc, P., Panza, G.F. (1993) A new method for the realistic estimation of seismic ground motion in megacities: the case of Rome. Earthquake Spectra 1993, 9(4), 643-668.DOI: 10.1193/1.1585735.
Giardini, D. (1999) The global seismic hazard assessment program (GSHAP) – 1992/1999. Ann Geophys 1999, 42(6), 957–974. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3780
Gorshkov, A.; Novikova, O. (2018) Estimating the validity of the recognition results of earthquake-prone areas using the ArcMap. Acta Geophysica 2018, 66(5), 843–853. DOI: 10.1007/s11600-018-0177-3.
GOST R 57546-2017 National Standard of the Russian Federation. Earthquakes. Scale of seismic intensity. Date of introduction 2017-09-01 (in Russian).
Gutenberg B, Richter C. F. (1954) Seismicity of the Earth, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton 310 p.
Gvishiani A.D., Agayan S.M., Bogoutdinov Sh. R. (2008) Discrete mathematical analysis and monitoring of volcanoes. Engineering Ecology 5: 26-31.
Healy J. H., Kossobokov V. G., Dewey J. W. (1992) A test to evaluate the earthquake prediction algorithm, M8, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Report 92-401, 23 p..
Hu X. B., Li H., Guo X., van Gelder P., Shi P. (2019) Spatial Vulnerability of Network Systems under Spatially Local Hazards. Risk Anal., 39(1):162-179. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12986.
Koks E., Rozenberg J., Zorn C., Tariverdi M., Vousdoukas M., Fraser S. A., Hallegatte S. (2019). A global multi-hazard risk analysis of road and railway infrastructure assets. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–11. DOI 10.1038/s41467-019-10442-3.
Kossobokov V. (2014) Chapter 18. Times of Increased probabilities for occurrence of catastrophic earthquakes: 25 years of hypothesis testing in real time. In: Wyss M, Shroder J (eds) Earthquake Hazard, Risk, and Disasters. Elsevier, London, 477-504.
Kossobokov V. G, Mazhkenov S. A. (1988) Spatial characteristics of similarity for earthquake sequences: Fractality of seismicity. Lecture Notes of the Workshop on Global Geophysical Informatics with Applications to Research in Earthquake Prediction and Reduction of Seismic Risk (15 Nov–16 Dec 1988), ICTP, Trieste.
Kossobokov V. G. (2013) Earthquake prediction: 20 years of global experiment. Natural Hazards 69(2):1155–1177; DOI:10.1007/s11069-012-0198-1.
Kossobokov V. G., Nekrasova A. K., Parvez I. A. (2022) Neo-deterministic methods for the current seismic hazard assessment based on discrete mathematics and Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes, India – Russia Scientific Webinar on “Seismology. Monitoring and Forecasting”, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25960.14081.
Kossobokov V. G., Soloviev A. A. (2018) Pattern recognition in problems of seismic hazard assessment. Chebyshevskii Sbornik 19(4): 55-90. (In Russian) DOI:10.22405/2226-8383-2018-19-4-55-90.
Kossobokov V. G., Soloviev A.A. (2021) Testing Earthquake Prediction Algorithms. Journal Geological Society of India, 97, pp.1514-1519; DOI: 10.1007/s12594-021-1907-8.
Kossobokov V., Nekrasova A. (2021) Seismic hazard and risks for social and infrastructure exposures adjacent to the Baikal–Amur Mainline, EGU General Assembly 2021, EGU21-6254, DOI:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-6254.
Kossobokov V.G., Nekrasova A. (2018a) Earthquake Hazard and Risk Assessment based on Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes: Altai-Sayan Region. Natural Hazards. 93(3): 1435-1449; DOI 10.1007/s11069-018-3359-z.
Kossobokov V.G., Nekrasova A. (2018b) Earthquake Hazard and Risk Assessment based on Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes: Greater Caucasus and Crimea. Journal of Seismology 22:1157–1169; DOI 10.1007/s10950-018-9759-4.
Kossobokov, V.G.; Mazhkenov, S.A. (1994) On similarity in the spatial distribution of seismicity. In: Chowdhury, D.K., Biswas, N.N., et al. (Eds) Computational Seismology and Geodynamics, Volume 1, pp. 6–15.
Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V (2002) Generalizing the Gutenberg–Richter scaling law. EOS Trans AGU 83(47):NG62B–0958.
Nekrasova A, Kossobokov,V, Parvez IA, Tao X (2015) Seismic hazard and risk assessment based on the unified scaling law for earthquakes. Acta Geod Geophys, Volume 50, Issue 1, Page 21-37, DOI: 10.1007/s40328-014-0082-4.
Nekrasova A., Kossobokov V. (2022a) The Lake Baikal Unified Scaling Law for Earthquake Regional Coefficients. In: Kosterov A., Bobrov N., Gordeev E., Kulakov E., Lyskova E., Mironova I. (eds) Problems of Geocosmos–2020. Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences. Springer, Cham; DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-91467-7_1.
Nekrasova A., Kossobokov V., (2022b), The Lake Baikal Region anisotropic seismic impact modelling for realistic assessment of associated risks and disaster scenarios. S07, 1213, 3 3ECEES: The Third European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Palace of the Parliament – Bucharest International Conference Centre, Bucharest, Romania, September 4-9, 2022.
Nekrasova A.K., Kossobokov V.G., Parvez, I.A.; Tao X. (2020) Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes as Applied to Assessment of Seismic Hazard and Associate Risks Izvestiya-physics of the solid earth, V: 56, Issue: 1, Pages: 83-94; DOI:10.1134/S1069351320010097.
Nekrasova, A., Kossobokov V. (2006), General Law of Similarity for Earthquakes: Evidence from the Baikal Region. Doklady Earth Sciences, Vol. 407A, No. 3, pp. 484–485.
Panza, G.F.; Romanelli, F.; Vaccari, F. (2001) Seismic wave propagation in laterally heterogeneous anelastic media: Theory and applications to seismic zonation. Advances in Geophysics 43, 1-95. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2687(01)80002-9.
Parvez I.A., Nekrasova A., Kossobokov V. (2014) Estimation of seismic hazard and risks for the Himalayas and surrounding regions based on Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes. Natl Hazards 71(1):549–562; DOI:10.1007/s11069-013-0926-1.
Parvez I. A., Magrin A., Vaccari F., Mir R. R., Peresan A., Panza G. F. (2017) Neo-deterministic seismic hazard scenarios for India—a preventive tool for disaster mitigation. Journal of Seismology, 21(6), 1559-1575; DOI 10.1007/s10950-017-9682-0.
Shebalin N.V. (1968) Methods of application of seismic engineering data for regional seismicity. Regional seismicity in the USSR. Nauka Publ. House, Moscow, pp. 95-111 (in Russian).
Ulomov, V.I., Medvedeva, N.S., eds. (2014) Specialized catalog of earthquakes for general seismic zoning of the territory of the Russian Federation. http://seismos-u.ifz.ru/documents/Eartquake-Catalog-СКЗ.pdf, , Sсhmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences , 512 p.
Ulomov V.I. (2007) The software and mathematical tools for constructing the probabilistic maps of seismic zoning by the GSZ-97 methodology, Geofiz. Issled., no. 7, pp. 29–52.
Ulomov V.I., Shumilina L.S. (1999) The Maps of General Seismic Zoning of the Russian Federation, GSZ-97, 1:8000000. Explanatory Note and the List of Cities and Localities Situated in Regions Prone to Seismic Hazard, Moscow: Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth, RAS.
Wells D.L., Coppersmith K.J. (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1994, 84, 974-1002.
Zavyalov A., Peretokin S., Danilova T., Medvedeva N., Akatova K. ( 2019) General Seismic Zoning: from Maps GSZ-97 to GSZ-2016 and New-Generation Maps in the Parameters of Physical Characteristics, Seismic Instruments, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 445–463, DOI 10.3103/S0747923919040121.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Minor revisions
01 Nov, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
28 Aug, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
26 Aug, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
26 Aug, 2022
First submitted to journal
25 Aug, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Seismic Risk Assessment for the Infrastructure in the Regions Adjacent to the Russian Federation Baikal–amur Mainline Based on the Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methodology

Seismic effect modelling

Providing Seismic hazard map(s)

Providing the seismic risk for infrastructure objects

Data

Results

Seismic hazard maps for the Lake Baikal region

Seismic Risk for infrastructure exposures adjacent to the Baikal–Amur Mainline and Trans–Siberian Railway

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

Acknowledgments

Data availability statement

Funding

Competing Interests

Author contributions

References

Status:

Version 1