Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Medeusky District of Almaty City
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Kazakh Scientific Research and Design Institute for Construction and Architecture (KazNIISA JSC) SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS IN KAZAKHSTAN Shokbarov Eraly Meirambekovich Managing Director for Production Activities, Candidate of Technical Sciences, Honorable Construction Worker of Kazakhstan Emeritus Professor of KSU CTA named after Isanov N. Bishkek City, 2019 Severe earthquakes in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan: overview Some areas of the Republic of Kazakhstan, prone to earthquake of 6 and over magnitude, occupy about 42.9% of total area of the country’s territory. At presentб about 42% of total number of the population of Kazakhstan (about 7 mln. people) live in seismic areas of the country, including over 2.0 mln people living in the areas with 9-magnitude seismicity (of whom 1,85mln. Keminskoe, 1911 (М8,2) people live in Almaty), 1.1 mln people living in the areas with 8 magnitude seismicity, 2.0 and 1.2 mln people living in the areas with 7 and 6 magnitude seismicity, accordingly. Vernenskoe, 1887 (М7,3) Chilikskoe, 1889 (М8,3) 1 List of earthquakes of М-6,3 for the last 150 years in the territory of Kazakhstan and its border areas No. Earthquake date Earthquake area Seismic intensity Notes 1 2 3 4 5 1 22.03.1865 Merke village area, Zhambyl region М=6,4; J0=8-9 Merkenskoe 2 29.08.1868 Southward of Kastek village, Almata region М=6,4; J 0=8 Kastekskoe 3 02.08.1885 Belovodsk and Karabalta rivers area, Kyrgyzstan М=6,9; J 0=9-10 Belovodskoe 4 08.06.1887 Almaty city area М=7,3; J 0=9-10 Vernenskoe 5 11.07.1889 Chilik village, Charyn, Almaty region М=8,3; J 0=10 Chilikskoe 6 03.01.1911 Southward of Almaty City М=8,2; J 0=10-11 Keminskoe 7 1921 Kuldja town, PCR М=6,5; J 0=8 Kuldjinskoe 8 03.06.1929 Kyzylkum, Kyzylorda region М=6,4; J 0=8 Chiilyiskoe 9 20.06.1938 Djil-Aryk village, Kyzyl-Bairak village, Kyrgyzstan М=6,4; J 0= 8-9 Kemino-Chuiskoe 10 21.12.1958 Djungar Alatau mountain range, Almaty region М=6,4; J 0= 7-8 Djungarskoe 11 05.06.1970 Przhevalsk City, Kyrgyzstan М=6,8; J 0=8-9 Sarykamyshskoe 12 10.05.1971 Taraz City М=5,7; J 0= 7 Zhambylskoe 13 24.03.1978 Kurmenty village, Almaty region М=6,8; J0=8-9 Zhalanash-Tyupskoe 14 25.09.1979 Bakanas village, Almaty region М=6,1; J 0=7 Bakanasskoe 15 14.06.1990 Zaisain town, East Kazakhstan region М=6,8; J 0=8 Zaisanskoe 16 12.11.1990 Zailsky Alatau mountain range, Almaty region М=6,3; J 0= 8 Baisorunskoe 17 19.08.1992 Kirghiz Alatau mountain range, Kyrgyzstan М=7,3; J 0= 9-10 Susamyrskoe 18 30.12.1993 Tekeli City, Almaty region М=6,1; J 0= 8 Tekelyiskoe 19 22.05.2003 Lugovoe station, Zmabyl region М=5,; J 0= 7-8 Lugovskoe 20 01.12.2003 Sumbe village, Almaty region М=6,1; J 0= 7-8 Narynkolskoe 1 General Seismic Zoning Maps (GSZ) of the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2 General Seismic Zoning Maps (GSZ) of the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan 3 SCHEME OF RESTRICTED ZONES BASED ON ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS Zone Site (by seismic intensity level) (by specifics of engineering and geological conditions) 8 SiteI-Б-2 SiteI-В-1 SiteI-В-3 9 SiteII-А-1 SiteII-А-2 SiteII-А-3 SiteII-А-6 SiteII-А-8 Site II-Б-1(III-А-1) SiteII-Б-2(III-В-2) SiteII-Б-5 Site II-Б-5(III-А-1) Site II-Б-6(III-В-6) SiteII-В-1 SiteII-В-2 SiteII-В-3 SiteII-В-4 Site II-В-5(III-В-5) SiteII-В-7 Site II-В-10(III-В-5) SiteII-Г-3 10 SiteIII-А-1 SiteIII-А-2 5 tectonic faults resting at up to 1200m SiteIII-В-1 SiteIII-В-2 depth and covering virtually the entire SiteIII-В-3 territory of the city have been identified SiteIII-В-4 SiteIII-В-5 within the boundaries of urban area. SiteIII-В-6 4 PERFORMED ASSESSMENTS OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS The share of earthquake-prone buildings within the housing fund has not decreased as of today as substantial construction activities have been undertaken only during the last 4 to 5 years, whereas earthquake-prone buildings have neither been demolished, nor reinforced. The share of earthquake-prone buildings within the group of social facilities (such as schools and kindergartens) is even higher. As is demonstrated by the international experience, severe earthquakes result in tightening (increase) of construction standard. Therefore, the researchers and design engineers face issues related to assessment of seismic resistance and safety of buildings constructed earlier. 5 ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS AT LUGOVOE STATION AREA The last severe earthquake in the Republic of Kazakhstan was observed on May 23, 2003, notably in the southern part of the country, at 400 km distance from Almaty City and 100 km distance from Taraz city; the earthquake epicenter was Lugovoe station. Pursuant to the data of Almaty engineering and seismometric station, the magnitude of Lugovoe earthquake was 5.4 on the Richter scale; depth of seismic focus (according to various estimates) was from 4 to 8 km. Earthquake intensity in the epicenter was 7-8 under MSK-64. 15 schools located in the territory of the district named after Ryskulov T. have been inspected. The schools’ buildings have been grouped by structural design thereof as follows: • School buildings with brick carrying walls; • School buildings with carrying walls made of bricks and reinforced concrete inclusions (composite structure); • School buildings with reinforced concrete frames; • School buildings with wooden carrying walls; • School buildings made of hand-formed bricks. The school buildings affected by seismic intensity of 6-8 m were also severely damaged. Of fifteen buildings of secondary schools: • Three buildings had to be demolished due to absence of anti-seismic activities; they were replaced with 3 new school buildings built by September 1 st ; • Twelve buildings had to be subjected to reinforcement activities despite some anti-seismic activities available. 6 DAMAGES OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS OF VARIOUS STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 6 REINFORCEMENT OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS OF VARIOUS STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 6 BASIS FOR WORKS PERFORMED Pursuant to the Roadmap for 2016-2018, A set of measures aimed at improved efficiency of seismic safety activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan, KazNIISA JSC specialists carried out research work on passportization of buildings and facilities of Almaty City. Under the said passportization during 2017-2018, 323 schools (with consideration of alphabetical designation) and 246 kindergartens (without consideration of alphabetical designation) in Almaty City were visually inspected. 6 GIS TECHNOLOGIES AS A TOOL FOR SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT For efficient seismic risk assessment, the geo- informational data base must contain the following: - Catalogues of earthquakes; - Catalogues of faults defining zones of potential earthquake focus; - Geological information; - Data on the number, location and life support facilities of the population; - Information about a building, infrastructure, including data on earthquake resistance; - Information on especially hazardous facilities as a source of secondary factors affecting the earthquake impact; - Data on forces and equipment, machinery to be used to relieve the consequences. 7 MODELLLING OF THE DEGREE OF BUILDINGS’ DAMAGE BY EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY (8-10,5 UNDER MSK-64) 7 THE GOAL OF THE WORK PERFORMED Ensure safety and improve quality of the population’s life, sustainable social and economic development of the region based on seismic risk consideration and potential social and economic losses in case of damages to school buildings, including due to forecasted earthquakes of 7, 8, 9 и 10 seismic intensity, for construction activities in Almaty City Collection of relevant, up-to-date data on seismic vulnerability of schools’ buildings of Almaty City; Development of electronic maps with reference to data of passportization of the school buildings inspected in eight administrative districts of Almaty City. 7 THE GOAL OF THE WORK PERFORMED Development of e-passport of school buildings / facilities of Almaty City; Identification of seismically vulnerable school buildings / facilities; Evaluation of the expected degree of damage of school buildings; Development of recommendations on further operation, seismic retrofitting or demolition of school buildings; Assessment of economic and social damage caused by potential earthquakes; Estimate of economic costs for seismic retrofitting based on degree of damage indicators of school buildings in the event of potential earthquakes 8 E-MAP OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS 9 E-PASSPORT FORM 10 ATTRIBUTES OF A FACILITY Layout diagram Photo sheet 11 STANDARD SERIES OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS Series (if available): Structural design: 1. Walls material (structure) 2Кз-200С. Metal frame; Reinforced concrete frame; Frame without collar breams; Partial frame; In-situ walls; Large-panel walls; With 1 st floor flexible walls; Walls of composite structure; Walls of masonry cast-in-situ structure; Masonry walls; Brick walls; Wooden logs walls; Square timber walls; Wooden intake walls; Frame, reed fiber walls 12 TECHNICAL PASSPORTS REFERENCE TO E -MAP OBJECTS 13 Matrix of seismic vulnerability of social facilities in Almaty City ## Seismic vulnerability Total evaluation Medeusky Alatausky Auezovsky Zhetysuisky Turksibsky ALmalinsky Bostandyksky Nauryzbaisky Pre-school facilities 1 3.1 Earthquake resistant 17 19 30 16 18 10 3 16 129 3.2 Earthquake prone 1 10 27 38 10 13 18 117 Sub-total 18 29 57 54 28 23 3 34 246 4 Schools 4.1 Earthquake resistant 18 29 25 44 20 23 5 26 190 4.2 Earthquake prone 25 8 23 15 9 25 13 15 133 Sub-total 43 37 48 59 29 48 18 41 323 Total 61 66 105 113 57 71 21 75 569 17 Facilities located in tectonic faults development zones on daylight surface, Almaty City Following the 2017-2018 passportization, the following number of schools and pre- school facilities have been identified as earthquake resistant: Schools: 190 out of 323 (51,4%), of which 114 retrofitted; Kindergartens: 129 of 246 (52,5%), of which 44 retrofitted; earthquake prone: Schools: 133 of 323 (48,6%); Kindergartens: 117 of 246 (47,5%)/ Of the surveyed facilities, the following number of secondary schools buildings and buildings of pre-school establishments are located in the tectonic fault development zones: Schools: 48 of 323 (14,8%); Kindergartens: 36 of 246 (14,6%).