Seismic risk mapping for Uzbekistan

Vakhitkhan Alikhanovich Ismailov, DSc a,b vakhit.mbm@gmail.com;

ed
Sharofiddin Ismatullayevich Yodgorov, PhD a,c sh.i.yodgorov@gmail.com
Timur Umarjonovich Mamarozikova, d timur.mamarozikov@yandex.ru

iew
Correspondence to: Sh.Yodgorov (sh.i.yodgorov@gmail.com)

a Institute of Seismology of the Academy of Sciences Republic of Uzbekistan, Zulfiyakhanum 3,

100128, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
b Tashkent State Technical University named after Islam Karimov, University 2, 100095,
Tashkent, Uzbekistan
c National University of Uzbekistan, University 4, 100174, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

v
d Russian State University of Oil and Gas (National Research University) named after I.M.
Gubkin, branch in Tashkent, Durmon Yuli 34, 100125, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

re
Abstract
The territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan (especially in the central, southern and eastern
parts) is located in seismically active zones and is fully subject to tangible seismic impacts.
According to historical and instrumental data, earthquakes were recorded on the territory of the
er
republic, causing shaking of 7, 8 and 9 points on the MSK-64 scale. Therefore, for these territories
there is a high probability of repetition of similar events in the future. This indicates the likelihood
of economic, social and environmental impacts.
pe
The purpose of this study is to assess and map the seismic risk of Uzbekistan, expressed in
terms of expected losses from damage to residential buildings.
When developing the seismic risk map, the positive experience of advanced assessment
and mapping methodologies used in other countries, in particular Germany, Italy, Russia,
Moldova, Armenia, etc., was taken into account.
The developed seismic risk map is based on an assessment of probable economic damages
ot

within administrative districts in combination of seismic hazard factors, seismic vulnerability and
concentration of values, which range from zero to hundreds of trillions of sums. It is important to
emphasize that the level of seismic hazard used in the calculations of physical and economic
damage corresponds to a 90% probability of not exceeding seismic impacts over a period of 50
tn

years, which corresponds to an average return period of 475 years. This level of probability is the
generally accepted standard for seismic hazard assessment in the design and construction of
conventional buildings and structures. Of course, for a different probability, the level of danger,
and, consequently, the assessment of damage and potential losses may differ from the data
rin

presented.
To develop a seismic risk map, databases were created based on GIS platforms that allow
to systematize and evaluate the regional distribution of information on seismic hazard, the number
of buildings and their constructive types, the coefficient of seismic vulnerability of buildings and
built-up areas, the cadastral value of buildings, etc.
ep

The present studies cover only the assessment of direct economic losses that may be caused
by structural damage to residential buildings as a result of seismic actions. At the same time, given
that residential buildings predominate in the development of cities and administrative districts of
Uzbekistan, the presented results can serve as a clear indicator for a comparative analysis of
Pr

seismic risk in various administrative districts.

Keywords
Seismic risk; seismic hazard, peak ground acceleration; building cadastral value, seismic
vulnerability, economic damage, seismic impact

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 1 Introduction.
As of January 1, 2022, the permanent population of Uzbekistan is 35,271,276 people. At
the moment, about half of Uzbeks (17.9 million) live in urban areas, and 17.4 million people live

ed
in rural areas. Despite the fact that on the territory of Uzbekistan and in adjacent regions, both over
the historical period of time and at the present stage, earthquakes with magnitude M ≥ 7 and
intensity of shaking at the epicenter I0 = 9-10 points on the MSK-scale 64 (tab.1.). Therefore, the
problem of ensuring the seismic safety of the territory of the republic is very relevant. The
geological structure of Uzbekistan is very diverse, but basically its territory consists of two tectonic

iew
structures of the Tien Shan orogenic region and the Turan plate. The current state of the relief of
the territory of Uzbekistan was preceded by long difficult stages. On the territory of Uzbekistan,
tectonic movements are actively continuing almost everywhere. In the geological history of
Uzbekistan, throughout all stages of development, in particular, in the formation of the modern
structural plan, faults, especially zones of deep faults, played an important role. They cut through
the entire earth's crust, often penetrate into the mantle and are the natural boundaries of large

v
structural elements. They influence disaster preparedness and risk reduction activities.

re
Table 1.
Destructive earthquakes on the territory of Uzbekistan and near its borders. The parameters of
these earthquakes are from the catalog of the Fund of Institute of Seismology Academy of Sciences
of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2017).
er Depth, Point,
№ Date Name Latitude Longitude M
km MSK-64
1 1868 3 August Tashkent 41,2 69,6 6,5 18 VIII
2 1883 November 14 Osh 40,59 72,8 5,5 12 VII
pe
3 1886 November 29 Tashkent 41,4 69,5 6,0 14 VIII
4 1888 28 November Costakozskoe 40,2 69,3 5,6 10 VIII
5 1902 16 December Andijan 40,8 72,3 6,4 10 IX
6 1903 28 March Aimskoe 40,8 72,69 6,1 14 VIII
7 1907 15 September Kyrkkol 40,3 72,5 5,8 10 VIII
ot

8 1908 24 March Namangan 40,9 71,0 5,4 26 VIII

9 1912 23 January Namangan 41,02 71,7 5,2 12 VII-VIII
10 1924 12 July Kurshabian I 40,5 73,1 6,4 25 VIII
tn

11 1924 Kurshab II 40,59 73,19 6,5 14 IX

12 1926 28 May Jalal-Abad 40,9 73,1 5,4 9 VII-VIII
13 1927 12 August Namangan 41,0 71,6 6,0 14 VIII
14 1929 November 18 Chilean 41,5 63,5 5,2 - VIII
rin

15 1932 10 February Tamdybulak 41,3 65,2 6,1 25 VII

16 1935 5 July Boysun 38,3 67,4 6,2 16 VIII
17 May 31, 1935 Bulungur 39,6 67,1 5,4 20 VII
18 1937 18 December Pskem 42,1 70,9 6,4 17 VIII
19 1942 18 January Yartepa 41,1 71,6 6,2 18 VIII
ep

20 1946 3 November Chatkal 41,9 72,0 7,5 25 IX-X

21 1947 2 June Naiman 40,9 72,3 5,9 9 VII-VIII
22 1955 19 July Bakhmal 39,7 68,0 5,2 21 VI-VII
23 1959 25 October Burchmullinsko 41,67 70,0 5,7 13 VIII
Pr

e
24 1965 17 March Koshtepinskoe 40,7 69,6 5,5 11 VII
25 1966 25 April Tashkent 41,33 69,28 5,3 8 VIII
26 1968 13 March Kyzylkum I 42,43 66,47 5,3 30 VII

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 27 1968 14 March Kyzylkum II 42,59 66,45 5,0 30 VII
28 1968 July 8 Baysun 38,11 66,9 5,0 15 VI-VII
29 1970 19 January Pskent 40,83 69,33 5,0 20 VII

ed
30 1971 28 October Chatkal 41,95 72,25 5,6 25 VI-VII
31 1976 8 April Ghazli I 40,33 63,67 7,0 25 IX
32 1976 17 May Ghazli II 40,28 63,38 7,3 20 IX
33 1977 19 January Isfara-Batken 40,11 70,79 6,4 15 VIII

iew
34 1977 21 April Khaidarkan 40,11 70,95 5,7 14 VII
35 1977 6 December Tavaksai 41,58 69,68 5,1 25 VII
36 1980 30 December Nazarbek 41,33 69,05 5,5 12 VIII
37 1982 6 May Chimionskoe 40,0 71,42 5,5 12 VIII
38 1984 17 February Papal 40,22 71,5 5,6 14 VIII

v
39 1984 19 March Gazli 40,38 63,36 7,2 15 IX-X
40 1985 28 October Kairakkum 40,28 69,8 5,5 15 VIII

re
41 1987 26 March Altyntepa 41,72 70,05 5,0 8 VII
42 1988 21 December Shamaldysai 41,28 72,19 5,5 15 VI-VII
43 1992 15 May Izbazkent 40,99 72,4 5,9 25 VIII
44 1999 25 December Kamashinskoe
er 38,64 66,42 5,1 12 VII
45 April 21, 2000 Kamashinskoe 38,68 66,52 5,0 10 VII
46 2000 19 January Kamashinskoye 38,66 66,5 5,0 10 VII
47 January 27, 2007 Sumsar 41,38 71,31 5,1 12 VI-VII
48 2008 1 January Gulchinskoye 40,32 72,97 6,0 20 VIII
pe
49 2008 28 October Jalal-Abad 40,98 73,16 5,1 9 VII
50 2008 22 August Tashkent 41,3 69,4 5,0 10 VI-VII
51 July 19, 2011 Kanskoe 40,16 71,42 6,1 10 VIII
52 May 24, 2013 Tuyabogoz 40,89 69,15 5,6 18 VII
53 May 26, 2013 Marzhanbulak 39,96 67,34 6,1 18 VIII
ot

54 September 29, Bakhmal 39,75 67,91 5,1 5 VI-VII

2017
tn

Assessment of risk is a necessary and important first step for any other disaster prevention
activities. The topicality of this problem is reflected in numerous publications. The first systematic
earthquake risk estimation studies were performed at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the
1970s. Publications of that period (e.g., Cornell, 1968; Algermissen et al., 1972; Grandori and
Benedetti, 1973; KeilisBorok et al., 1973; Whitman et al., 1975; Lomnitz and Rosenblueth, 1976)
rin

[1-6] laid ground for future activities. In the recent decades, especially during the International
Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR, 1990–2000) [7], there has been growing
recognition of the problem in the world community. The change in emphasis from hazard to risk,
gingered up by a sequence of disastrous earthquakes worldwide, caused the development of
ep

procedures and techniques for seismic vulnerability, damage and risk analysis on different
geographical scales, e.g., PELEM (1989), Chen et al. (1992, 2002), Papadopoulos and Arvanitides
(1996), King et al. (1997), McCormack and Rad (1997), Zonno et al. (1998), FEMA-NIBS (1999),
Faccioli and Pessina (2000), Spence (2000), Bendimerad (2001), Fah et al. (2001), Coburn and
Spence (2002), Lang (2002), Frolova et al. (2003), Giovinazzi and Lagomarsino (2004), Mouroux
Pr

et al. (2004), Trendafiloski and Milutinovic (2004), Erdik, M. et al. (2005), Tyagunov et al. (2006),
Di Pasquale et al. (2005), Wang et al. (2005), Mariano A. Zanini et al. (2019) and many others [8-
30]. Different interpretations of the risk concept can be found in different publications, though the
general consensus is that risk is a quantified possibility of losses.

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 The combined aspects of seismic hazard distribution, seismic vulnerability and exposed
assets provide the necessary basis for seismic risk analysis. Such an analysis for the whole of
Uzbekistan is the goal of this study, conducted as part of the implementation of the above

ed
paragraphs of the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated July 30, 2020 No.
PP-4794 by the Institute of Seismology of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
To develop a seismic risk map for the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan, databases
were created based on GIS platforms that allow you to systematize and evaluate the regional
distribution of information on seismic hazard, the number of buildings and their structural types,

iew
the geographical location of residential buildings, the coefficient of seismic vulnerability of
buildings and built-up areas, cadastral building costs, etc.
The seismic risk analysis algorithm uses the capabilities of GIS, layer-by-layer combining
data on the spatial distribution of seismic hazard, the vulnerability of buildings, the geographical
location of residential buildings, as well as values, i.e., cadastral value of buildings at risk of
damage and loss. Seismic vulnerability analysis is carried out using the program "GESI_Program",

v
which is based on the methodology for assessing seismic damage to buildings. At the same time,
the existing buildings on the territory of the republic were collected and classified according to the

re
structural types of the building. There are 5 types of buildings: buildings built using local clay
materials; brick buildings; wooden buildings; buildings constructed using a metal frame and
reinforced concrete buildings. For local history studies of urban and regional territories, seismic
data took into account the influence of local soil conditions (microzoning and detailed zoning),
inventory of buildings and asset values (element-by-element or with representative units) [31].
er
The developed seismic risk map of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan is based on
an assessment of probable economic damages within administrative districts in combination with
seismic hazard factors, seismic vulnerability and concentration of values, which range from zero
to hundreds of trillions of soums. It is important to emphasize that the level of seismic hazard used
pe
in the calculations of physical and economic damage corresponds to a 90% probability of not
exceeding seismic impacts over a period of 50 years, which corresponds to an average return
period of 475 years. This level of probability is the generally accepted standard for seismic hazard
assessment in the design and construction of conventional buildings and structures. Of course, for
a different probability, the level of danger, and, consequently, the assessment of damage and
ot

potential losses may differ from the data presented.

When developing the seismic risk map of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the
seismological and macroseismic databases of the Institute of Seismology of the Academy of
Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, data on the housing stock of the Republic of the State
tn

Cadastral Chamber of the Cadastral Agency under the Tax Committee of Uzbekistan and scientific
developments of the Institute of Seismology and the Institute of Mechanics and Seismic Resistance
of the Structure of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan and JSC
"ToshuyjoyLITI” performed during the implementation of the State scientific and technical
programs.
rin

The present studies cover only the assessment of direct economic losses that may be caused
by structural damage to residential buildings as a result of seismic actions. At the same time, given
that residential buildings predominate in the development of cities and administrative districts of
Uzbekistan, the presented results can serve as a clear indicator for a comparative analysis of
ep

seismic risk in various administrative districts.

2 Materials and Methods.

2.1 Seismicity and seismic hazard. In the development of geodynamic and seismic
processes, there are certain spatio-temporal and energy patterns that make it possible to
Pr

differentiate territories according to the degree of their geodynamic activity and seismic hazard.
The sources of the strongest earthquakes are not scattered randomly, but are located in a certain
order along extended and relatively narrow zones - active faults, most vulnerable to rapid tectonic
movements. The location of such seismically active geological structures, as well as their seismo-

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 geodynamic regime and the seismic effect they create on the earth's surface, are the subject of
detailed study and form the basis of seismic zoning.
At present, at the Institute of Seismology of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of

ed
Uzbekistan, a large team of scientists [32] have developed a new set of maps of the general seismic
zoning of the territory of Uzbekistan (OSR -2017) (Fig. 1.). Developing the basic ideas about the
probabilistic zoning of seismic hazard, used in the construction of the OSR-2011 maps, the set of
OSR-2017 maps contains a number of novelty elements both in the application of methodological
methods for assessing and forecasting seismic hazard, and in the nature of the presentation of the

iew
final information.
The map of the general seismic zoning of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan has
been developed on a fundamentally new methodological basis, taking into account the latest
domestic and world scientific achievements in the field of seismology and seismic hazard zoning,
which is as follows:
The concept of OSR-2017 includes: the principle of two stages in the assessment of seismic

v
hazard, based on the creation of two interconnected predictive models - zones of occurrence of
earthquake sources (seismogenic) and a seismic effect model; ideas about the limiting value of the

re
maximum possible earthquake magnitude Mmax in the PEO zones for a certain time interval, due
to the structural and dynamic unity of the geophysical environment and the seismic processes
developing in it (the intensity of the interaction of geoblocks, sizes, strength properties, the nature
of contacts, etc.); probabilistic-deterministic approach to assessments of input and output data,
probabilistic assessments of seismic hazard and seismic zoning; differential methods for assessing
er
and predicting seismic hazard for territories belonging to different geodynamic conditions (orogen,
transition zone, platform).
To assess the seismic risk of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan, a map of general
seismic zoning (OSR-2017) was adopted as a source of impact for a 90% probability of not
pe
exceeding seismic impacts for 50 years. This is due to the fact that the level of impact with a
probability of 90% is the generally accepted standard for seismic hazard assessment in the design
and construction of conventional buildings and structures, on the one hand, and on the other hand,
the adoption of a higher level of probability naturally increases the level of seismic impacts and
increases reliability and responsibility. maps, but also increases the level of seismicity and
ot

ultimately increases the predicted value of damage and potential losses.

Figure 3 shows a map of the seismic zoning of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan
for a 90% probability of not exceeding seismic impacts for 50 years. This map represents the
seismic zoning of the territory of Uzbekistan in terms of maximum ground accelerations. For a
tn

shaking repetition period of 475 years, different levels of seismic impacts are calculated, ranging
from amax ≥ 50 to amax ≥ 350 cm/s2 with a step of 50 cm/s2. According to the results of the
calculation of the periods of repetition of shaking with a given value of peak accelerations amax,
zones of equal probability of not exceeding the values of maximum accelerations for 50 years were
constructed.
rin

Three areas are characterized by the highest values of peak accelerations (аmax = 300-350
cm/s2) with a probability of not exceeding Р = 0.90. In the west - an area that coincides with the
western strike of the South Tien Shan seismically active zone and passes in the south into an area
controlled by the activity of the Gissar-Kookshal fault. In Eastern Uzbekistan, the North Ferghana
ep

and Andijan seismically active zones are characterized by the highest values of peak accelerations.
Here, in some areas, the predicted values of the amplitudes of peak accelerations amax can exceed
300 cm/s2. In the Pritashkent region, controlled by the seismicity of the Karzhantau structure, the
maximum accelerations should not exceed the values amax = 250 cm/s2.
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 ed
v iew
re
er
Fig.1. Map of seismic zoning of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
pe
Taking into account that the assessment of the seismic risk of the territory of the republic
is carried out within the administrative districts, the assessment of seismic impact for the selected
territories is also differentiated at the level of administrative districts based on GIS technology.

2.2 Seismic vulnerability. The seismic vulnerability of a building is the ratio of the
ot

expected costs of restoring objects that may be subject to the damaging effects of an earthquake
of a given intensity, to their initial cost. Vulnerability ranges from 0 (no damage) to 1.0
(unrepairable). Knowing the current value of the object, it is possible to determine the damage in
monetary terms. The dependence of vulnerability on seismic action (for example, in points) is
tn

called the vulnerability function. Vulnerability functions play a central role in regional seismic
loss estimation
The vulnerability function is a relationship that is used to predict the statistics (eg mean,
standard deviation) of the seismic loss distribution, i.e. what damage the object (for example, a
rin

building or a bridge) will suffer under probabilistic seismic effects. It should be noted that the
vulnerability functions are calculated separately for each type of building listed in the cadaster.
To assess the vulnerability of structural types of buildings identified on the territory of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, vulnerability functions were built using the computer program "GESI
Program", based on the assessment of damage to structures under given seismic effects (Fig. 2).
ep

This program was developed as part of the United Nations Global Earthquake Safety Initiative
(GESI) Pilot Project in 1999-2001. within the framework of the international project RADIUS
(Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas against Seismic Disasters), conducted by
the UN-IDNDR Secretariat in 1998-1999, in which the cities of Addis Ababa (Ethiopia),
Pr

Antofagasta (Chile), Bandung (Indonesia) participated, Guayaquil (Ecuador), Zigong (China),

Izmir (Turkey), Skopje (Macedonia), Tashkent (Uzbekistan) and Tijuana (Mexico) [7].
Figure 2, in addition to the vulnerability function, also shows the boundary conditions of
damage, which are characterized by the total direct costs of restoring buildings to their original
state.

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 Thus, the given vulnerability functions for various types of buildings were used to calculate
the average degree of building vulnerability in the territory of administrative districts.

ed
v iew
re
er
pe

Fig.2. Vulnerability function for different building types.

(Buildings built using local materials (adobe - such as "guvalyak", "pahsa" and "raw
brick"); buildings built from baked bricks; wooden (chopped, panel) residential buildings;
reinforced concrete (panel, large-panel, monolithic and reinforced concrete) buildings; buildings
ot

with a metal frame or a frame with diaphragms (ties).

Studies show that residential development on the territory of Uzbekistan is represented by

tn

various types of buildings, which are respectively characterized by different vulnerability

functions. At the same time, in the existing building there is a predominance of individual houses
built of raw brick.
The methodology for assessing the vulnerability of residential development in the territory
of administrative districts is based on the data on the vulnerability of constructive types of
rin

buildings with which the considered settlement or city is built up (Fig. 3.). For a comparative
analysis and assessment of the vulnerability of buildings and structures in various settlements of
the Republic of Uzbekistan and local areas (territories of districts) in which there are buildings
with degrees of vulnerability in different proportions, the average vulnerability index of buildings
ep

and structures (Mean Vulnerability Ratio, MVR) is taken into account [33]. Note that the average
degree of vulnerability of buildings and structures is calculated based on the calculated values of
the vulnerability of buildings under seismic impact. The numerical value of the vulnerability of
buildings and structures is determined as follows:
∑𝒏 𝑵𝒊 ⋅ 𝑴𝑽𝑹𝒊
,
Pr

𝒊=𝟏
𝑴𝑽𝑹 = (1)
∑𝒏 𝑵𝒊
𝒊=𝟏

where MVR is an indicator of the vulnerability of buildings and structures; MVRi corresponding
to the average value of the selected building type; N is the number of buildings of the same type

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 subject to seismic impacts. This indicator (MVR) can be useful for quantitative comparison of the
vulnerability of buildings and structures in the territory of districts and cities, especially when it is
relatively heterogeneous.

ed
v iew
re
er
pe

Fig. 3. Map of the average values of seismic vulnerability within the administrative regions of
the Republic of Uzbekistan.
ot

Using the above dependence, the average values of the seismic vulnerability of buildings
were calculated for the territory of administrative districts, which, when generalized, represent a
tn

single whole seismic vulnerability of the territory of the republic. Calculations show that the
average value of the vulnerability of residential buildings in the districts varies in the range of
values from 0.1 (weakly vulnerable buildings) to 0.75 (very vulnerable buildings). The map in the
table shows the average vulnerability values for each administrative region.
The program consists of five sets of input parameters that characterize the type of structure,
rin

design features, quality of construction, quality of building material and the level of seismic impact
in peak accelerations. Based on these input parameters, a damage diagram and a building
vulnerability function are constructed. Damage to buildings is rated in four levels: light, moderate,
heavy and very heavy.
ep

Damage characteristics of buildings:

Grade 1. Minor injuries
- light non-structural damage - cracks in plaster (up to 0.5 mm wide) and chipping of small
plasters from walls and frame elements, thin cracks in partitions, cornices and floor screeds;
- light structural damage (complete or almost complete absence). Minor damage requires
Pr

maintenance costs. According to the norms, it is up to 15% of the value of the book value of the
object.
Grade 2: Moderate damage

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 - moderate non-structural damage - chipping off of rather large pieces of plaster, falling
roof tiles, cracks in chimneys, falling parts of chimneys, through cracks in partitions and lintels
above openings, cracks in the masonry of gables and parapets, their partial displacement;

ed
- light structural damage - small cracks in the walls, between prefabricated floor panels,
along the counter of large blocks, in the load-bearing elements of the frames. Overhaul costs are
calculated with damage to the building - from 15-35%.
Grade 3. Severe injuries
- severe non-structural damage - falling chimneys, gable wall parapets, collapse of

iew
individual or many load-bearing and self-supporting elements, destruction of lintels over openings;
- moderate structural damage - large deep and through cracks in the walls, loss of
connections between structural elements, separation of longitudinal walls from transverse ones. In
case of severe damage, the costs of restoring repairs are determined depending on the nature of the
damage and are decided by an expert commission. Restorative repair is determined depending on
the damage from 35 to 55%.

v
Grade 4: Very severe injuries
- non-structural destruction - the collapse of individual sections of the internal walls and

re
the collapse of partitions;
- Structural destruction - delamination of the masonry of load-bearing walls, gaps in the
walls, destruction of connections between individual parts of the building, rupture of the joints of
prefabricated structures. In case of damage to the building of the 4th degree, the building is subject
to demolition. er
Seismic vulnerability is estimated as a percentage of damage from peak acceleration.
According to the definition, the vulnerability of buildings is understood as the property of
a structure to lose its qualitative or quantitative indicators of reliability and safety due to any
impact. Vulnerability ranges from 0 (no damage) to 1 (unrepairable). The dependence of
pe
vulnerability on seismic action (for example, in points) is called the vulnerability function.
The vulnerability function that relates the degree of damage to the level of seismic impact,
given in points on the MSK-98 scale, is usually determined empirically.
For a detailed assessment of the damage to buildings at different intensity of seismic
impacts and to compile the vulnerability function of specific structural types of buildings,
ot

calculations were carried out using the GESI_Program program.

Comparison of the results shows (Fig. 4) that macroseismic observations [34] of the
damage to the buildings under consideration are much different from the calculated results
obtained by the "GESI_Program", but at the level of 7.3 points they coincide. Closer matches in
tn

form and meaning are graphs obtained by calculation using "GESI_Program" and experimental
data of Sh.Khakimov [35]. Based on these data, it can be assumed that the use of the
“GESI_Program” for assessing the vulnerability of constructive types of buildings gives better
results, at least excludes subjective opinions when comparing the damageability of buildings.
The vulnerability function, which relates the degree of damage to the level of seismic
rin

impact, given in MSK points or maximum accelerations, is usually determined empirically or by

calculation methods. When studying the engineering consequences of strong local earthquakes,
world statistics on damage data for classes of objects located in the study area in a similar
seismogeological situation are involved. To date, the Institute of Seismology of the Academy of
ep

Sciences of Uzbekistan has accumulated a long-term archive of data on the consequences of strong
earthquakes. However, the range of observed intensities is still insufficient to obtain full-fledged
regional loss matrices. Therefore, at this stage, we limited ourselves to using the GESI_Program
program, which at the moment is the best way to model and evaluate the relationship between the
degree of damage and the level of seismic impact.
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 10

ed
9

Seismic intensity, point

8

iew
7

v
5
0 1 2 3 4 5

re
Degree of damage
1-line 2-line
Fig.4. Graph of changes in the average degree of damage to individual mudbrick houses
er
depending on seismic intensity.
1-according to A. Juraev, 2-according to Sh.A. Khakimov, 3-according to the program
"GESI_Program".
pe
This paper represents the first attempt to compile an extensive database on Uzbekistan and
is making significant efforts to include the most at-risk assets in it. At the same time, a database
of the Republican housing stock was formed on the basis of the database of the State Cadastral
Chamber of the Cadastral Agency under the Tax Committee of Uzbekistan
Residential buildings available on the territory of Uzbekistan were divided into 5 main
types of structural systems:
ot

1. A type - (buildings built using local materials (adobe - such as "guvalyak", "pakhsa" and
"raw brick");
2. B type - buildings built of burnt bricks;
tn

3. In type - wooden (chopped, panel) residential buildings;

4. C type - reinforced concrete (panel, large-panel, monolithic and reinforced concrete)
buildings;
5. D type - buildings with a metal frame or a frame with diaphragms (ties).
In turn, the noted 5 types of buildings were divided into 24 varieties in relation to the use
rin

of various load-bearing structures (Table 2), the marked systems are typical not only for
Uzbekistan, but also for all cities of Central Asia. The buildings were also classified according to
the number of storeys and the type of material of the supporting structures.
ep

Table 2.
Classification of buildings in Tashkent according to the vulnerability index [35]
Average
No. Building types and their supporting systems damage
index
Pr

1 Residential buildings from local low-strength materials (without anti-seismic 3.95

measures)
2 One-story clay walls of the type "Gualak" and "Pakhsa" 3.68
3 3-5 storey frameless brick buildings with wooden floors until 1958) 3.84

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 4 Prefabricated reinforced concrete frame made of linear elements with a welded 2.96
joint in the zone of maximum effort, or the same with stiffening diaphragms in
one direction (frameworks III of the IIS-04 series and their modifications)

ed
5 1-2 storey frameless brick walls with wooden floors 3.15
6 Crossbarless frame or buildings erected by raising floors (crossbarless frame 2.75
with stiffening core)
7 Buildings with flexible ground floor and rigid upper floors 2.7
8 Walls made of bricks, small concrete or natural stones. Ceilings - prefabricated 2.62

iew
reinforced concrete
9 Large-panel walls without anti-seismic measures 2.61
10 Buildings with external load-bearing brick walls, internal - reinforced concrete 2.58
frame elements
11 Prefabricated frame of flat reinforced concrete cross or H-shaped elements with 2.56
monolithic nodes

v
12 Monolithic reinforced concrete frame 2.55
13 Walls made of large blocks (concrete, vibro-brick, reinforced vibro-brick 2.5

re
panels)
14 Reinforced concrete frame with brick filling 2.41
15 1-2-storey wooden frame filled with raw bricks "sinch" 2.37
16 Walls of complex construction (with reinforced concrete inclusions). Ceilings
er 2.33
- prefabricated reinforced concrete
17 Prefabricated reinforced concrete frame-braced frame with monolithic nodes, 2.22
with stiffening diaphragms in two directions or stiffening cores
18 Frame made of spatial elements (volumetric cross) with monolithic knots 2.17
pe
19 Large-panel buildings with brick exterior walls 2
20 Monolithic walls 1.86
21 Large panel walls 1.73
22 Volumetric blocks per room 1.67
23 1-2 storey wooden houses (chopped, panel) 1.16
ot

24 Metal frame or frame with diaphragms (bonds) 1.16

Notes: 1. The table shows the average values of the damage index, the calculated seismicity of
which corresponds to the severity of the territory; 2. The first column indicates the degree of
tn

vulnerability: 1 - the most vulnerable (dangerous types of buildings); 24 - least vulnerable

3 Results and Discussion.

3.1 Asset values. Residential buildings include individual houses built by the owner of the
dwelling by construction contractors and multi-apartment buildings built by construction
rin

contractors. According to cadastral data, as of February 1, 2021, the housing stock of the republic
consists of 7,135,881 houses and apartments.
Depending on the demographic situation, the number of residential buildings on the
territory of the republic has a very uneven distribution. The housing stock of Uzbekistan is divided
ep

according to the specifications of 2 main types: individual buildings and multi-storey buildings.
Of these, 80.1% of the buildings are individual buildings and 19.9% are apartments in multi-storey
residential buildings.
It should be noted that in the housing stock of the republic there are 44,827 multi-storey
buildings, where 1,375,623 apartments are concentrated, which are also taken into account when
Pr

forming the building information database.

These types of buildings are distributed extremely unevenly in quantitative terms and
geographically, so among them the buildings built using local materials are the most widespread.
They are very represented in rural areas (settlements, towns, cities, etc.) and their number is about

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 70% of the total number of residential buildings in the republic. The smallest number is represented
by buildings built of wood (including panel houses) and metal frame - less than 1%. On fig. 5
shows a diagram of the distribution of the number of residential buildings by design types.

ed
According to data, buildings built using local materials is -69.3%; buildings built of burnt bricks -
22.5%; concrete (panel, large-panel, monolithic and reinforced concrete) buildings - 7.1%;
wooden (chopped, panel) houses - 1%; metal frame or frame with diaphragms - 0.2%.

iew
Local clay material;
69.3%

v
Brick; 22.5

re
Wooden houses
Metal frame; 0.2% Reinforced concrete,
(chopped, shield);
7,1% 1%

er
Fig.5. Distribution diagram of the number of residential buildings by design types.

Analysis of statistical data shows a large spread in the number of buildings by structural
types. For example, in the Kashkadarya region, the share of buildings built from local clay material
pe
is more than 83% of the total number of residential buildings, in the Samarkand and Andijan
regions - 82%, and in the Tashkent region it is 48.3%. In large cities, their share varies from 13 to
27%. This circumstance must be taken into account when assessing seismic risk, since the amount
of damage from an earthquake in the selected territorial units depends on the proportion of specific
structural types of buildings.
ot

The number of residential buildings located on the territory with different seismicity,
expressed by peak accelerations of seismic effects (see Fig. 3) is shown in Figure 6. This diagram
shows that a large number of buildings, about 31% of the total number of residential buildings, are
located on the territory with peak accelerations 100-150 cm/s2, 27% of the building is located in
tn

areas with peak accelerations of 150-200 cm/s2 and more than 30% in areas with peak accelerations
of more than 200 cm/s2, i.e. 8 point zone on the EMS-98 scale.

7% 4% 8%
rin

12%

11%
31%
ep

27%

0-50 50-100
Pr

100-150 150-200
200-250 250-300
300-350
Fig.6. Distribution diagram of the proportion of residential buildings in areas with different
seismic effects (values of peak accelerations in cm/s2).

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 Information on the distribution of residential buildings by structural types depending on
the territorial location (in zones with different seismic effects) is given in Tables 2 and 3.

ed
v iew
re
er
Fig.7. Number of residential buildings by structural types located on the territory with different
pe
seismic effects (PGA, cm/s2).

Table 3.
Structure of the distribution of the housing stock in Uzbekistan depending on the structural types
of buildings (as of February 1, 2021)
ot

including (%)
Structural types of the building Total, %
in cities in rural areas
А type 69,2 27,2 84,8
tn

B type 22,5 54 10,9

C type 1 0,6 1,1
D type 7,1 18 3,1
E type 0,2 0,2 0,1
rin

To assess the seismic risk in the context of the administrative districts of the republic, it is
necessary to distribute the share of the housing stock within the administrative district, taking into
account the zones of seismic impact. Figure 8 shows the share of residential buildings located on
the territory with different parameters of seismic vibrations (based on the OSR map - 2017 with a
ep

probability of 90%).
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 ed
v iew
re
Fig.8. Distribution of residential buildings on the territory with different seismic effects in the
context of regions.

Inventory of existing buildings and structures and creation of a database. The assessment
er
of the social and economic consequences of earthquakes is based primarily on the assessment of
physical damage to buildings, life support systems and transport facilities. Therefore, the inventory
of all engineering structures is the most important task in the complex of work on the identification
of risk elements. When performing an inventory of structures, in assessing possible physical
pe
damage under the influence of strong earthquakes, the inventory database should contain structural
parameters that reflect the characteristic response of structures to strong ground vibrations. To
address this issue, the inventory should reflect those characteristics of buildings that may be
relevant to their response to severe ground motion. Typically, these characteristics are: the
structural system and material of construction, the age of construction, the quality of construction
and operation of buildings.
ot

In the database of the State Cadastral Chamber, the data of the Republican Fund (in *.xlx
format) are as follows: Region, district, cadastral code, geographical coordinates, types of objects
(individual and multi-storey building), real estate (address), actual cost, land area, area of the land
tn

plot under construction, total usable area, new cost, number of storeys, year of construction and
materials.
Based on the analysis and systematization of the collected housing stock data, i.e. of
geometric parameters of registered objects in *.xlx format, a database was created in *.mdb and
*.shp formats. Figure 9 shows a fragment of the geographical location of registered residential
rin

buildings in the Pap district of Namangan region in *shp format.

ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 ed
iew
Fig.9. Geographic location of registered residential buildings in the Pap district of Namangan

v
region in *shp format.

re
Figure 10 shows the sequence of registration of objects (a specific building - a building site
- the territory of the administrative district - the territory of the region) in *shp format.

er
pe
ot

Fig. 10. The sequence of registration of housing stock.

tn

Using the created database, the total cadastral value of the housing stock within the
administrative regions of Uzbekistan was determined, which is measured in a trillion soums (in
March 2021 prices) (Fig. 11). The presented map is essentially a map for assessing the value of
rin

the territory of Uzbekistan.

ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 ed
v iew
re
er
Fig. 11. Map of the total cadastral value of the housing stock within the administrative regions of
pe
the Republic of Uzbekistan.

3.2 Probable seismic damage and seismic risk. Seismic risk maps of the territory of the
Republic of Uzbekistan were compiled on the basis of an assessment of 90% probability of not
exceeding seismic impacts for 50 years and seismic vulnerability of buildings within the
administrative regions of Uzbekistan. In this case, the cadastral database of the housing stock of
ot

the republic was used.

To develop a seismic risk map for the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan, several
databases based on GIS platforms have been created that allow you to systematize and evaluate
tn

the regional distribution of information about seismic hazard, the number of buildings and their
structural types, the coefficient of seismic vulnerability of buildings and built-up areas, the
cadastral value of buildings, etc. d.
The seismic risk analysis algorithm uses the capabilities of GIS, layer-by-layer combining
data on the spatial distribution of seismic hazard, building vulnerability, and values, i.e. cadastral
rin

value of buildings at risk of damage and loss. Seismic vulnerability analysis is carried out using
the program "GESI_Program", which is based on the methodology for assessing seismic damage
to buildings. At the same time, the existing buildings on the territory of the republic were collected
and classified according to the structural types of the building. There are 5 types of buildings:
ep

buildings built using local clay materials; brick buildings; wooden buildings; buildings constructed
using a metal frame and reinforced concrete buildings.
The developed seismic risk map of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan is based on
an assessment of probable economic damages within administrative districts, depending on the
combination of seismic hazard factors, seismic vulnerability and concentration of values, ranging
Pr

from zero to hundreds of trillion sums. It is important to emphasize that the level of seismic hazard
used in the calculations of physical and economic damage corresponds to a 90% probability of not
exceeding seismic impacts over a period of 50 years, which corresponds to an average return
period of 475 years. This level of probability is the generally accepted standard for seismic hazard

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 assessment in the design and construction of conventional buildings and structures. Of course, for
a different probability, the level of danger, therefore, estimates of damage and potential losses may
differ from the data presented.

ed
When developing a seismic risk map for the territory of Uzbekistan, the seismological and
macroseismic databases of the Institute of Seismology of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic
of Uzbekistan, data on the housing stock of the Republic of the State Cadastral Chamber of the
Cadastral Agency under the Tax Committee of Uzbekistan and scientific developments of the
Institute of Seismology and the Institute of Mechanics and Seismic Resistance of Structures of the

iew
Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan and JSC ToshuyjoyLITI served as the basis
”, performed during the implementation of the State scientific and technical programs.
The present studies cover only the assessment of direct economic losses that may be caused
by structural damage to residential buildings as a result of seismic actions. At the same time, given
that residential buildings predominate in the development of cities and administrative districts of
Uzbekistan, the presented results can serve as a clear indicator for a comparative analysis of

v
seismic risk in various administrative districts.
Below is a small-scale map of the seismic risk of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan

re
with an assessment of the probability of economic damage (Figure 12), within the administrative
districts at the maximum level of seismic impacts for periods of recurrence of shaking T=475
years.
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep

Fig. 12. Estimated distribution of seismic risk (billion soums) in settlements of Uzbekistan with a
probability of not exceeding 90% in 50 years.
Seismic risk map of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan with an assessment of the
probability of economic damage
Pr

4 Conclusions.
Seismic risk maps of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan with an assessment of the
probability of economic damage and damage to housing stock on a scale of 1:1000,000 are

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 developed taking into account world scientific achievements in the field of seismic risk
assessment. Based on the results of the study, the following scientific and practical conclusions
can be drawn:

ed
To assess seismic impacts, a map of seismic zoning of the territory was used in the
engineering parameters of seismic vibrations, in particular, the parameter of maximum peak
acceleration. At the same time, quantitative characteristics of seismic impacts from various types
of seismic sources were used, taking into account the uncertainty factors of the input parameters
used in the calculations, based on regional patterns of attenuation of the intensity of seismic

iew
impacts with distance for earthquakes of various energy levels.
The basis for creating seismic risk maps for the territory of the republic, along with a new
methodology, is a seismic impact assessment map of 90% probability of not exceeding within 50
years on a scale of 1: 1,000,000, the results of assessing the seismic vulnerability of various
constructive types of residential buildings under given seismic impacts (probability of seismic
impact on buildings) and a generalized and systematized cadastral database of the housing stock

v
of the republic.
The concept of seismic risk assessment uses the power of GIS to combine layer by layer

re
data on the spatial distribution of seismic hazard, building vulnerability, and values at risk of
damage and loss.
Comparison of the calculated data with observational data on the damage caused by real
past earthquakes shows their good agreement, which indicates the correctness of the developed
models and the efficiency of the calculation algorithm, which, in combination with operational
er
seismological information, can also be used to estimate losses from earthquakes that occurred in
real time mode.
Seismic vulnerability analysis and assessment was carried out using the GESE_Program.
Vulnerability models built depending on the constructive types of residential buildings
pe
characterize the vulnerability of residential buildings in all administrative regions of Uzbekistan,
which are subsequently considered as calculation cells. To assess the magnitude of potential
damage in monetary terms, the cost indicators of the restoration of residential buildings are used.
With regard to seismic impacts, they are considered in the framework of the project in the form of
a probabilistic seismic hazard map. This approach makes it possible to conduct a comparative
ot

analysis of the distribution of risk throughout the country.

When compiling a seismic risk map of the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan, an
administrative region was chosen as a territorial unit. This is due to the fact that the scale of the
study (1:1,000,000) does not allow for a detailed presentation of the existing database related to
tn

seismic hazard assessment, distribution of typical buildings, vulnerability assessment, etc.

The results obtained are presented in the form of maps showing the spatial distribution of
possible damage to residential development and direct economic losses caused by these damages
in all administrative regions of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
The territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan is characterized, on the one hand, by a relatively
rin

high level of seismic hazard, and, on the other hand, by a rather high concentration of residential
buildings with a lack of seismic resistance. Thus, possible future seismic events in a country
represent a typical high probability problem with a potentially high level of loss. The obtained
results and seismic risk maps can serve as a basis for developing plans and measures to reduce the
ep

existing level of risk and prevent the catastrophic consequences of future earthquakes.
The present studies cover only the estimation of direct economic losses. At the same time,
given that residential buildings predominate in the development of cities and towns in Uzbekistan,
the presented results in themselves can serve as a clear indicator for a comparative risk analysis
throughout the country.
Pr

References.
[1] Cornell, C. A.: Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 58, 1583-1606, 1968.

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 [2] Algermissen, S. T., Rinehart, W., Dewey, J., Steinbrugge, K. V., Lagorio, H. J., Degenkolb,
H. J., Cluff, L. S., McClure, F. E., Scott, S., and Gordon, R. F.: A study of earthquake losses
in the San Francisco Bay Area: Data and analysis, Washington, D.C., NOAA, 1972.

ed
[3] Grandori, G. and Benedetti, D. (1973), On the choice of the acceptable seismic risk. Earthquake
Engng. Struct. Dyn., 2: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290020102.
[4] Keilis-Borok, V. I., Kantorovich L. V., and Molchan, G. M.: Seismic risk and principles of
seismic zoning, in: Computational and Statistical Methods for Interpretation of Seismic Data,
Moscow, Nauka, (in Russian), 3-20, 1973.

iew
[5] Whitman, R. V., Biggs, J. M., Brennan, J. E., Cornell, C. A., Neufville, R. L., and Vanmarcke,
E. H.: Seismic design decision analysis, ASCE Struct. Eng. J., 101, 1067-1084, 1975.
[6] Lomnitz, C. and Rosenblueth, E. (Eds.): Seismic Risk and Engineering Decisions, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 425 pp., 1976.
[7] RADIUS: Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas against Seismic Disasters,
Geneva, Switzerland: IDNDR Secretariat, United Nations, 38 pp., 2000.

v
[8] PELEM (Panel of Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology): Estimating Losses from Future
Earthquakes, National Academy Press, 248 pp., 1989.

re
[9] Chen, Y., Chen, X. L., Fu, Z. X., Ying, Z. Q., and Yang, M. D.: Estimating Losses from
Earthquakes in China in the Forthcoming 50 Years, Seismological Press, Beijing, 60 pp.,
1992.
[10] Chen, Y., Chen, Q. F., Liu, J., Chen, L., and Li, J.: Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis: A
Simplified Approach, Science Press, Beijing, 228 pp., 2002.
er
[11] Papadopoulos G. A. and Arvanitides, A.: Earthquake Risk Assessment in Greece, in:
Earthquake Hazard and Risk, edited by: Schenk, V, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 221-229, 1996.
[12] King, S. A., Kiremidjian, A. S., Basoz, N., Law, K., Vucetic, M., Doroudian, M., Olson, R.
A., Eidinger, J. M., Goettel, K. A., and Horner, G.: Methodologies for evaluating the socio-
pe
economic consequences of large earthquakes, Earthq. Spectra, 13, 565-584, 1997.
[13] McCormack, T. C. and Rad, F. N.: An earthquake loss estimation methodology for buildings
based on ATC-13 and ATC-21, Earthq. Spectra, 13, 605-622, 1997.
[14] Zonno, G., Cella, F., Luzi, L., Menoni, S., Meroni, F., Ober, G., Pergalani, F., Petrini, V.,
Tomasoni, R., Carrara, P., Musella, D., Garcia-Fernandez, M., Jimenez, M. J., Canas, J. A.,
ot

Al faro, A. J., Barbat, A. H., Mena, U., Pujades, L. G., Soeters, R., Terlien, M. T. J., Cherubini,
A., Angeletti, P., Di Benedetto, A., Caleffi, M., Wagner, J. J., and Rosset, P.: Assessing
seismic risk at different geographical scales: concepts, tools and procedures, in: Proc. of the
11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France, CD-ROM, 1998.
tn

[15] FEMA-NIBS: Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, HAZUS 99, Technical Manual,
Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Institute of Building Sciences,
Washington, 1999.
[16] Faccioli, E. and Pessina, V: The Catania Project: Earthquake damage scenarios for high risk
area in the Mediterranean, CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Roma, 2000.
rin

[17] Spence, R.: Recent earthquake damage in Europe and implications for loss estimation
methodologies, in: Implications of Recent Earthquakes on Seismic Risk, edited by: Elnashai,
A. S. and Antoniou, S., Japan-UK Seismic Risk Forum, 3rd Workshop, London, 6-7 April,
CD-ROM, 2000.
ep

[18] Bendimerad, F.: Modeling and quantification of earthquake risk: Application to emerging
economies, in: Mitigation and Financing of Seismic Risks, edited by: Kleindorfer, P. R. and
Sertel, M. R., Kluwer Acad. Publ., 13-39, 2001.
[19] Fah, D., Kind, F., Lang, K., and Giardini, D.: Earthquake scenarios for the city of Basel, Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Engrg., 21, 405-413, 2001.
Pr

[20] Coburn, A. and Spence, R.: Earthquake Protection, Second edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
420 pp., 2002.
[21] Lang, K.: Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings. Dissertation, Inst. of Struct. Eng., Swiss
Federal Inst. Technology, Zurich, 196 pp., 2002.

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339
 [22] Frolova, N., Larionov, V., Sushchev, S., and Ugarov, A.: Extremum system for earthquake
risk and loss assessment, in: Proc. of the Conference Skopje Earthquake - 40 Years of
European Earthquake Engineering, Ohrid, Macedonia, CD-ROM, 2003.

ed
[23] Giovinazzi, S. and Lagomarsino, S.: A macroseismic method for the vulnerability assessment
of buildings, in: Proc. of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (13 WCEE),
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1-6 August, paper no. 896, 2004.
[24] Mouroux, P., Bertrand, E., Bour, M, Le Brun, B., Depinois, S., Masure Ph. and the RISK-UE
team: The European RISK-UE Project: An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios,

iew
in: Proc. of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (13 WCEE), Vancouver,
BC, Canada, 1-6 August, paper no. 3329, 2004.
[25] Trendafiloski, G. and Milutinovic, Z.: GIS-oriented method for elaboration of probabilistic
earthquake scenarios, in: Proc. of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (13
WCEE), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1-6 August, paper no. 1809, 2004.
[26] Tyagunov S., Grunthal G., Wahlstrom R., Stempniewski L., and Zschau J. (2006) Seismic

v
risk mapping for Germany. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 573-586, 2006. www.nat-
hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/6/573/2006/

re
[27] Erdik, M., T.Rashidov, E.Şafak, A.Turdukulov (2005), Assessment of Seismic Risk in
Tashkent, Uzbekistan and Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 25, 473-486, 2005
[28] Di Pasquale, G., Orsini, G., and Romeo, R. W.: New developments in seismic risk assessment
in Italy, Bull. Earthq. Eng., 3, 101-128, 2005.
er
[29] Wang, Y., Shi, P.-J., and Wang J.-A.: The housing loss assessment of rural villages caused
by earthquake disaster in Yunnan Ptovince, Acta Seismol. Sinica, 18, 590-601, 2005.
[30] Mariano Angelo Zanini, Lorenzo Hofer, Carlo Pellegrino. A framework for assessing the
seismic risk map of Italy and developing a sustainable risk reduction program. International
pe
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2019. Vol: 33, Page: 74-93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.09.012
[31] Ismailov V.A., Yodgorov Sh.I., Allayev Sh.B. (2022). Seismic microzoning of the Tashkent
territory based on calculation methods. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol: 152,
Page: 107045. doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107045
ot

[32] Artikov T.U., Ibragimov, R.S., Ibragimova T., Mirzaev M.A. (2020). Complex of general
seismic zoning maps OSR-2017 of Uzbekistan. Geodesy and Geodynamics. 11 (2020) 273-
292 11. 10.1016/j.geog.2020.03.004.
[33] Alkaz V.G., Isichko E.S., Ginsar V.N. (2012) Seismic risk assessment for the largest cities of
tn

the Republic of Moldova // Buletinul Institutului de Geologie si Seismologie al ASM. 2012.

№2. 69-77.
[34] Usmanova M.T., Djuraev A., Frolova A.G., Nurmatov U.A., Ikramova D.A., Sattarova A.M.
(2019). Tuyabuguz earthquake on may 25, 2013 with КР =14.1, МS=5.2, I0 =7 (Tashkent
district, Uzbekistan) //Earthquakes of Northern Eurasia. 22 (2013). - 2019. 397-408.
rin

doi:10.35540/1818-6254.2019.22.35
[35] Khakimov Sh.A. (2000) Vulnerability of buildings at earthquakes and questions of reduction
of seismic risk in the urbanized territories // Architecture and construction of Uzbekistan. N
2-3, p. 23-25.
ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4145339