Archived Press Releases
Released: Almaty, Kazakhstan, October 28, 1996
ALMATY, KAZAKHSTAN--Half of the six million people of the Central Asian Republics live, work and go to school in buildings that are extremely vulnerable to collapse during earthquakes. The tragedies of Armenia and Sakhalin will be repeated in Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan unless structures throughout the urban regions of these nations are strengthened before the next major earthquake, which has a high probability of striking within the next 2 decades.
This grim warning was issued today by an international team of structural and geophysics experts meeting here to assess the earthquake hazards of major cities in the region and to devise possible ways to mitigate those hazards. The results of the meeting, a NATO Advanced Research Workshop, were presented today to Nikolay M. Makivesky, Deputy Prime Minister of Kazakhstan and director of the Kazakh State Committee for Emergencies.
"The bad news is that the uniformity of Soviet construction makes the seismic risk unusually widespread. The good news is that, once a workable rehabilitation scheme is devised, it can be applied throughout the region. This could make reducing earthquake risk from structural failure affordable," explained Brian Tucker, co-director of the workshop and President of GeoHazards International, a non-profit organization dedicated to improving urban earthquake risk management in the world's most vulnerable communities.
The problem is urgent. One of the workshop's findings, reported by Dr. Bruce Bolt, Emeritus Professor of Seismology of the University of California, Berkeley, was that "There is a high probability that a severe earthquake will occur near the capital of one or more of the Central Asian Republics within the next 20 years, with consequences as devastating as those in Leninakan, Armenia in 1988." Dr. Tursunby Rashidov, of the Uzbekistan Institute of Mechanics and Seismic-Resistant Construction, concluded that the consequences would be worse than those in Armenia, given the massive political, social and economic changes now occurring in Central Asian societies.
Such an earthquake will produce, in the nearby capital city, ground shaking equal to that experienced in the 1988 Spitak, Armenia earthquake, namely, intensity IX on the MSK scale, devised by Soviet engineers. The MSK scale classifies the effects of earthquakes on nature and man-made structures from a level of I (indicating no effects) to a level of XII (indicating total destruction).
The effect would be similar to what happened in Armenia in 1988 and in Sakhalin in 1995. The devastating collapse of standard residential buildings in the town of Leninakan (Armenia) was detailed in a keynote lecture opening the conference. In this earthquake, 80 percent of the structures of one building-type were destroyed. In this case, it was the nine-story panel-frame building known as Series 111. Due to the widespread collapse of schools and the fact that school was in session when the earthquake struck, more children than adults perished. In Neftegorsk (Sakhalin), 60 percent of the residents died, most in five-story "khrushchoby"-type structures built in the late 60s and early 70s. According to Professor Mustafa Erdik, Chairman of the Department of Earthquake Engineering at the Bosphorous University in Istanbul, Turkey, "World-wide experience in developing countries indicates that ground shaking of an intensity level of IX on the MSK scale will result in a fatality rate of at least 5% of the exposed population and an injury rate of 20%." (In Leninakan, the fatality rate was about 5%, but in Sakhalin it was about 60%.) For a city the size of Almaty, Kazakhstan, this would mean approximately 85,000 deaths and 340,000 injuries. The estimated consequences for all the Central Asian capitals are summarized in the following table:
ESTIMATED CONSEQUENCES OF AN EARTHQUAKE PRODUCING MSK IX LEVEL SHAKING IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN CAPITALS
| CAPITAL CITY | CURRENT POPULATION (millions) | ESTIMATED DEATHS (thousands) | ESTIMATED INJURIES (thousands) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Almaty, Kazakhstan | 1.5 | 75 | 300 |
| Ashkabad, Turkmenistan | 0.7 | 35 | 140 |
| Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan | 0.6 | 30 | 120 |
| Dushanbe, Tajikistan | 0.6 | 30 | 120 |
| Tashkent, Uzbekistan | 2.7 | 135 | 540 |
More than one-half of all residential buildings in the Central Asian capitals would likely collapse or be damaged beyond repair if exposed to an MSK IX level of shaking. A detailed description of the expected damage to the most prevalent building types found in Central Asia, when subjected to different levels of shaking, was prepared by a working group chaired by Mr. Christopher Rojahn, Executive Director of the Applied Technology Council. Their results are summarized in the following table:
EXPECTED DAMAGE TO PREVALENT BUILDING TYPES OF CENTRAL ASIA, WHEN SUBJECTED TO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SHAKING
| Building Type | MSK INTENSITY | |||
| VI | VII | VIII | IX | |
| Brick-Wood | slight-moderate | moderate-heavy | partial collaspe | total collapse |
| Brick-Precast: Pre 1957 | none- slight | slight- moderate | heavy-partial collapse | partial collapse |
| Brick-Precast: Post 1957 | none | none- slight | moderate- heavy | heavy-partial collapse |
| Weak First Story | none | slight | heavy | heavy- total collapse |
| Precast- Frame | none | slight | moderate- heavy | heavy-partial collapse |
| Adobe | slight- moderate | slight | partial- total collapse | total collapse |
| Large Panel | none | none- slight | slight- moderate | moderate |
The workshop began with a tour of current and Soviet-era construction in Almaty. This "eyes-on" approach continued later in the workshop with a second tour--this time of Almaty's lifelines, neighborhoods and geotechnical hazards. After this, the assembled experts heard an overview of the seismic hazard of Central Asia, and a review of successful earthquake risk reduction strategies used in the United States.
Dr. Tucker, co-chair of the workshop, explained that the Armenian and Sakhalin disasters were "wake-up calls"--warnings to neighboring regions that should have been heeded. But, he said, "At the very time that the awareness of this region's high seismic vulnerability has been growing, political developments have resulted in a dramatic decrease in the ability of local engineers and scientists to assess and mitigate this risk.
"When the USSR broke up, many of the region's most experienced seismic risk specialists were Russians who left the region, and collaboration became difficult among the new governments in the Central Asian Republics. In short," Tucker concluded, "the earthquake experts in Central Asia have become dramatically fewer in number, more isolated and less well trained." This was the first gathering of the Central Asian participants in more than 5 years.
Drawing a parallel to the 1971 "wake-up call" in the United States when the San Fernando earthquake alerted governments to devise new standards for commercial buildings, hospitals and highway bridges, Tucker noted that "much had been done by the time of the Northridge event in 1994. The Central Asian Republics had no chance to respond to their wake-up call and we hope that this workshop will help fill that void."
An accurate assessment of the structural vulnerability in the region had not previously been made. Thus, the workshop's purpose was to determine the likelihood of strong ground shaking, to estimate the number of buildings at risk, to understand the cause of their vulnerability, and to design risk management strategies.
A major goal of the workshop was to identify resources available to implement those strategies. "Rather than only ask for money from their governments," Tucker said, "the workshop participants committed themselves to steps they could take themselves."
The Central Asian delegates will urge their governments, despite the tremendous challenges facing the Central Asian republics during this transitional period, to raise the importance currently placed on addressing the earthquake safety of schools, day-care centers, hospitals, emergency response agencies, and critical lifelines. "The very future of Central Asia is dependent on the integrity and continued functioning of these facilities," said Professor Bolt.
The delegates will seek to initiate cooperative projects with the international communities in each of the capital cities in which joint Central Asian and international teams of engineers would design and implement retrofit measures for facilities critical to these communities. Professor Lawrence Reaveley, chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Utah, said, "This work might be financed by international organizations and would result in a cadre of well-trained local engineers, capable of pursuing similar projects on their own in the future."
Finally, the delegates created a Joint Central Asian Urban Earthquake Risk Management Working Group, consisting of the heads of the delegations of the five republics and foreign experts. The group's purpose is to promote urban earthquake risk management throughout Central Asia, by carrying on such activities as: improving the exchange of information among the Central Asian republics and with external organizations; training professionals, especially students; contributing to the creation of new legislation that governs earthquake safety; raising public awareness of earthquake risk; rehabilitating residential construction to a minimum level of seismic safety; establishing a strong-motion network of five digital stations in each capital with uniform data processing, common instrumentation, and free data exchange. Professor Erdik has proposed that the Working Group's first meeting is scheduled for July, 1997 in Istanbul, Turkey, where the Central Asian members of the group will present a concrete plan of action, which will be discussed and agreed upon. In the workshop, representatives from each of the five Central Asian republics provided detailed information about their geographic region in general and their capital cities in particular. Representatives from each nation included a specialist on earth science, a specialist on structural engineering, and a public official.
The information was organized as responses to a series of questions. The detailed information brought by the Central Asian delegates in response to the questionnaire included geologic, structural, and organizational information necessary to design programs to reinforce multistory apartment buildings against future earthquakes. Maps with major seismic features relevant to the capital cities helped assess the risk of future earthquakes. A detailed accounting of past earthquakes, their magnitude and the extent of damage to various types of buildings along with a current inventory of building types in each city, helped researchers predict future earthquake damage if no actions are taken.
In particular, the number of multistory residential buildings constructed since 1960 using "Soviet" construction techniques was tabulated. The number of people living in each type of construction was also estimated for each capital city. Descriptions of existing building regulations and the governmental organizations involved in regulation and reconstruction were provided.
Using this information from the republics, the experts formed working groups to devise programs for each country to reduce the seismic vulnerability of buildings. These programs would work with existing governmental organizations using demonstrated technologies.
Technologies and programs to strengthen these structures were identified. These technologies spring from efficient ways to identify and strengthen seismically vulnerable structures that have been successfully applied in areas as diverse as California and Ecuador. In Ecuador, for example, once the most vulnerable public schools were identified, local funding was raised for their retrofit. The working groups also estimated costs, identified the necessary people and resources, and proposed feasible statutes and policies that would be effective in carrying out the proposed programs. All agreed a long-term commitment was needed in each republic.
The organizing committee of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop included: Juha Uitto, United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan; Toeleby Zhunusov, of the Kazakh Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismoprotection, Atmaty, Kazakhstan; Mustafa Erdik, Bosphorous University, Istanbul, Turkey; L. Thomas Tobin, Tobin and Associates, Mill Valley, California; Wilfred Iwan, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California; and Christopher Rojahn, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California; as well as Dr. Tucker and Dr. Khalturin.
Organizations providing funding included: North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); the United Nations University; The Foreign Office of the Republic of Germany; World Seismic Safety Initiative of the International Association of Earthquake Engineering; United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the IRIS Consortium, The Joint Seismic Program of Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, The American University of Armenia; the U.S. National Center for Earthquake Engineering; the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI) Commission on the International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR); the Aga Khan Foundation; OYO Corporation, and the Cecil and Ida Green Foundation.
In his closing remarks, Dr. Tucker said: "We applaud the candid discussions and commitment of the Central Asian participants. Our understanding of the urban seismic risk in Central Asia was greatly advanced. While knowledge is power, only action by Central Asians to reduce that risk will serve the human needs of Central Asia."
#######