Earthquake intensity assessment based on environmental

effects: principles and case studies

R. E. TATEVOSSIAN*, E. A. ROGOZHIN, S. S. AREFIEV & A. N. OVSYUCHENKO
Institute of Physics of the Earth, RAS, ul. B. Gruzinskaya 10, Moscow 123995, Russia
*Corresponding author (e-mail: ruben@ifz.ru)

Abstract: The comparison of intensity assessments based on macroseismic data and Earthquake
Environmental Effects (EEE) is presented. Specific problems faced when assessing intensities
using different types of scales are discussed. Two case studies of recent earthquakes with magni-
tudes MS 7.4 (Altai, 2003, and Neftegorsk, 1995) are used to illustrate the applicability of the
INQUA EEE scale. The Altai earthquake was accompanied by surface faulting of c. 70 km
length and up to 2 m of horizontal and 70 cm of vertical offset; secondary EEE were observed
over 3000 km2. The dominant type of surface faulting during the Neftegorsk earthquake was
strike-slip. The length of surface faulting was up to 46 km, maximum horizontal offset was
8.1 m, and average offset coherent with seismic moment was 3.9 m; secondary EEE were observed
occasionally at considerable distance from the epicentre on wet seashore sands. Application of the
INQUA scale shows the epicentral intensity of the Altai earthquake to be X degrees. Most consist-
ent with all types of data (rupture length, maximum and average offsets) intensity assessment for
the Neftegorsk earthquake which is within the X XI degree range. Taking into account environ-
mental effects in intensity scales is an essential requirement: it follows from the complex nature of
an earthquake impact, which spans a very broad frequency range, including static deformations.
The case studies illustrate that the intensity assessment of an earthquake, based only on damage
to buildings, will be essentially incomplete.

The INQUA scale is designed to calibrate earth-
quake intensity based on environmental effects
(Michetti et al. 2004). A revised version of the
scale was published in 2007 (Guerrieri & Vittori
2007); a new name for the scale was adopted, the
Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI 2007).
The importance of Earthquake Environmental
Effects (EEE) as a tool to measure earthquake inten-
sity is being increasingly acknowledged (e.g.
Dengler & McPherson 1993). The reasons for this
are as follows.
(1) The EEE size is the most reliable parameter
for the intensity assessment of strong earth-
quakes. For major earthquakes (intensity
equal to or more than X) the effects on the
built environment suffer from saturation
(man-made structures are nearly completely
destroyed), therefore intensity assessments
based only on the damage caused to buildings
cannot work properly.
(2) The use of EEE ensures comparability of
earthquake intensity assessments worldwide.
The EEE are free from influence of cultural
and technological features, which can have
essential differences in various parts of the
world. Moreover, earthquake-prone areas
can be located completely or partially in
deserted places, where only the effects on
the natural environment are available for the
estimate of intensity.
(3) Intensity based on EEE is the best tool to
compare recent, historic and pre-historic
earthquakes. As the impact of an earthquake
on the artificial environment depends on the
distribution of urbanized areas, it is difficult
to compare two seismic events that occurred
in the same area, but distant in time. This
approach extends the time coverage of earth-
quake catalogues to prehistoric times.
Immediately after publication of the ESI 2007
scale, studies began that had the goal of testing it.
Guerrieri et al. (2007) proposed rules of the scale
application. A classification of effect types was
suggested: it recognizes primary and secondary
environmental effects. The primary effects
(surface faulting) are linked more or less directly
to earthquake source; the secondary effects (slope
movements, ground cracks, liquefaction, etc.) rep-
resent the result of a complex interaction of source
features, seismic wave propagation paths and
local conditions. Guerrieri et al. (2007) formulated
conceptual differences between intensity ranges,
which can be assigned to a single environmental
effect and intensity in a natural locality. They pro-
posed how to move from the size of a single effect
toward intensity assessment at a locality (for expla-
nations see Fig. 1b). Tatevossian (2007) gives a

From: REICHERTER , K., MICHETTI , A. M. & SILVA , P. G. (eds) Palaeoseismology: Historical and Prehistorical Records
of Earthquake Ground Effects for Seismic Hazard Assessment. The Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
316, 73 91. DOI: 10.1144/SP316.5 0305-8719/09/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2009.
74 R. E. TATEVOSSIAN ET AL.
Fig. 1. Intensity assessment in localities. (a) Inhabited
locality (village N). B1 to B12 are buildings
characterized by a certain vulnerability class (V1 to
V12). D1 to D12 are assessed damage degrees of each
inspected building. (b) Natural locality (valley N). Site A
to Site D are single EEE sites in the valley. MIN, MAX
are intensity ranges, which have to be ascribed to
each site.
detailed analysis of the scale application to historic
earthquakes. It was demonstrated that the ESI
2007 scale is a very useful tool to gain a compre-
hensive image of a historic earthquake. In this
paper, which is part of a worldwide testing of the
ESI 2007 scale, results of the scale application to
intensity calibration of two recent earthquakes are
presented. When addressing recent earthquakes we
are able to analyse relationships between the earth-
quake parameters based on instrumental and geo-
logical data. This can give useful hints on how to
develop the ESI 2007 scale further.
The ESI 2007 scale is designed not to replace but
to overpass some limitations of the macroseismic
scales based mostly on damage caused to the build-
ings, and ignoring environmental effects (like EMS
98; Grunthal 1998). To keep the door open for future
incorporation of intensity scales of different types,
the ESI 2007 scale has to be logically consistent
with them. Assessment of macroseismic intensity
in a inhabited locality is explained in Figure 1a.
During expert inspection of a village, damage
degree and vulnerability class are assessed for
each building (in practice, for a representative
sample of the buildings) (Table 1). According to
the EMS 98 scale, damage is classified in five
degrees (V is for complete collapse). Vulnerability
Table 1. Illustration of damage degree assessment to
buildings based on macroseismic effects
Building Vulnerability Observed damage Damage
degree
B1 V1 C Hair cracks in D1 I
plaster
B12 V12 A Some of partition D12 II
walls fall, no
damage to
bearing walls
assessment is based on the building type (brick, con-
crete, wood, etc.) and takes into account a number of
factors (quality of design and construction works,
actual state, etc.), which are able to alter the basic
vulnerability class. All buildings are classified into
six groups from A to F (A is the most vulnerable).
Intensity in the locality is assessed based on
damage degree statistics, addressed in a qualitative
way (few, some, most). This approach can be
easily adopted for local intensity assessment based
on EEE. In the case of a natural locality (e.g. a
valley), instead of buildings single EEE sites (i.e.
landslide, rockfall, ground cracks, etc.) can be
used (Fig. 1b). Intensity range is assessed for each
site analogous to damage degree of buildings in
the EMS scale (Table 2). Intensity in the natural
locality has to be assessed based on this range
according to expert evaluation (Guerrieri et al.
2007). For example, according to the information
in Table 2, the most consistent assessment for the
valley N in Figure 1 will be VIII degree.
It is more difficult to maintain the same
approach when locating the epicentre and assessing
epicentral intensity (I0) in the case of macroseismic
and environmental effects (Fig. 2). In the case of
macroseismic effects the epicentre is a point, the
location of which is deduced from the spatial
Table 2. Illustration of intensity range assessment to
natural locality based on EEE
Site Effect type Observed Intensity
damage range
A Ground cracks Fractures up to VIII IX
60 cm wide
observed in
loose alluvial
deposits
D Landslide Landslide at VII VIII
steep slope up
to 2  104 m3
 EEE: PRINCIPLES & CASE STUDIES 75

Fig. 2. Imaginary cases of epicentre location and epicentral intensity assessment based on macroseismic (a) and
environmental (b) effects. L1 to L5 are five localities in the earthquake-prone area, for which macroseismic intensities
are assessed using the scheme in Figure 1a. Star marks position of epicentre. Thick black lines are mapped surface
faulting segments. Total rupture length and maximum offset are reported.

distribution of observed intensities in localities; I0
degree is an extrapolation from observed ones
(Fig. 2a). We have to answer the following question:
What intensity would be observed in that point (star
in Fig. 2a) if there were a village? Some seismolo-
gists avoid the extrapolation procedure and prefer
to manipulate only with maximum observed inten-
sity, but still assigned to the epicentre. So, we
have a distribution of points (localities) over a
certain area, from which the position of another
point (the earthquake epicentre) has to be derived.
But a dimensionless point can represent surface
faulting of several tens or hundreds of kilometres
only conventionally. Where should the epicentre
be placed in Figure 2b? It is not easy to answer
this question, especially if we recall that often the
maximum offset is not in the middle of the surface
faulting. Distribution of surface faulting allows
depiction of an epicentral area, rather than a dimen-
sionless point. When the source is not exposed on
the surface it is possible to locate the epicentre on
the basis of the distribution of secondary effects.
Therefore, I0 becomes the earthquakes character-
istic parameter, like seismic moment M0, which is
proportional to the product of rupture area and
average displacement over it.
In this paper we will address two case studies to
compare macroseismic and EEE intensities, and to
highlight the specific problems faced in assessing
intensities and how reliable they are.
Case studies are two recent earthquakes (Altai,
2003, and Neftegorsk, 1995) that occurred in differ-
ent seismotectonic conditions (Fig. 3). Both earth-
quakes had the same magnitude (MS 7.4; all
magnitudes according to International Seismologi-
cal Centre 2003), so they are roughly equal from
an instrumental point of view. They were shallow
source earthquakes, and both manifested surface
faulting. But the macroseismic, environmental and
social impacts of these seismic events are essentially
different, which makes them interesting objects for
detailed study.
The Altai earthquake, 27 September 2003
The epicentral area of the Altai earthquake
(MS 7.4) is situated in Russia, close to the frontier
with China, Mongolia and Kazakhstan (Fig. 4). The
regional topography is sharp; the mountains reach
4500 m a.s.l, separated by depressions at 1500 m
a.s.l. The earthquake was felt over a large territory
 76
R. E. TATEVOSSIAN ET AL.
Fig. 3. Location of epicentres of the Altai 2003 and the Neftegorsk 1995 earthquakes.
 EEE: PRINCIPLES & CASE STUDIES 77

Fig. 4. Geographical and seismotectonic settings of the epicentral area of the Altai 2003 earthquake. Plotted area
roughly corresponds to the area over which the earthquake was felt. (a) Epicentre map (black dots) for historical and
instrumental times. Star shows position of the mainshock; rectangle outlines the area where environmental effects of the
earthquake were observed. (b) CMT solution plots.
78 R. E. TATEVOSSIAN ET AL.
(up to 2000 km of distance); the area of its environ-
mental effects is outlined by a rectangle in
Figure 4a. The earthquake did not occur in an aseis-
mic place; however, all previously known earth-
quakes in its epicentral area were of considerably
smaller magnitudes (the largest was M 6.0). The
seismic history is short: although the first earth-
quake mentioned in the catalogue is in 1761,
regular information starts in the 1850s. The epicen-
tre of the 2003 earthquake is within the Altai moun-
tain system, which crosses the Russian border and
continues into Mongolia and China. The dominant
type of faulting in the region is strike-slip with
reverse and normal components (Fig. 4b) (CMT
catalog 2008). According to the same source
(CMT catalog 2008) the mainshock in 2003 was a
strike-slip event with a small thrust component.
The aftershock sequence is unusual. Within three
days earthquakes with magnitudes MS 7.4 (the
mainshock), 6.6 and 7.0 occurred. This is very far
from what is expected according to Baths statistical
law, which predicts the magnitude of the largest
aftershock to be one unit smaller than the mainshock
magnitude (Bath 1965). These three shocks have
similar centroid moment tensor (CMT) solutions,
in which the predominant movement is strike-slip
(Fig. 5a). One of the nodal planes strikes NW SE,
which is perfectly consistent with the general orien-
tation of surface faulting and extension of secondary
EEE effects. Possibly some of the EEE in the north-
ern part of the epicentral area occurred due to the
MS 7.0 aftershock. But because field survey
(Rogozhin et al. 2007) started two weeks after the
mainshock, this hypothesis can not be verified.
The Altai earthquake aftershock map is shown in
Figure 5b. Due to the epicentral observations with
dense temporary network, the location accuracy is
high (within 13 km) (Arefiev et al. 2006). The
whole length of the surface faulting is pronounced
in the aftershock area.
Both primary (Fig. 6) and secondary (Fig. 7)
EEE types were associated with the Altai earth-
quake. The dominant type of surface faulting is
strike-slip with some vertical component, which is
consistent with CMT solution. In the northern ter-
mination normal faulting was observed, oblique to
the general orientation of the system of strike-slip
faults (Fig. 8a). It is not clear if it occurred during
the mainshock, or the magnitude 7.0 aftershock. It
is not unusual for strike-slip faults to terminate
with normal or reverse faulting, which helps to
accommodate strains accumulated within the
system of strike-slip faults. Various secondary
effects were observed: ground cracks, liquefactions,
rockfalls and landslides. Faults of vibrational origin
occurred parallel to the surface faulting. There is
almost no offset along them (or it is negligible).
We consider them as secondary EEE type.
The total length of surface faulting is c. 70 km,
maximum horizontal offset reaches 2 m, and
maximum vertical offset is up to 70 cm. Applying
the ESI 2007 scale, the epicentral intensity is X
degrees based on surface faulting parameters
(close to the limit between X and XI degrees). The
same epicentral intensity degree follows from the
total area (c. 3000 km2) affected by secondary
EEE. Consistency between epicentral intensity
assessments based on different effect types and
sizes (total length and maximum offset of surface
faulting, and total area of secondary EEE) makes
I0 X a reasonably accurate evaluation. Thanks
to detailed field observations, data on fault
segment parameters are available; this makes it
possible to differentiate at least two zones within
the epicentral area (Fig. 8a). In zone A horizontal
offsets of different segments vary from 1 to 2 m;
in zone B offsets are in the order of some tens of
centimetres (but not reaching 50 cm). A valley
where the surface faulting has a different strike
from the general orientation of the fault system, sep-
arates these two zones. The instrumental epicentre
of the MS 6.6 aftershock, that occurred 6 h
10 min after the mainshock, coincides with this
place. In zone B four aftershocks occurred with
MS . 4.5, the largest one with MS 7.0. Intensity
X can be assessed in the central and southern parts
(zone A) and intensity IX in the northern branch
(zone B), based on details of slip distribution
along the surface faulting system.
Figure 8a gives information on macroseismic
intensities in villages located in the epicentral
area. The Altai earthquake was not destructive, but
it caused damage (Goldin et al. 2004). The
highest observed intensity was VIII degree assigned
to Beltir. There is a certain inconsistency: the village
of Beltir is c. 7 km distant from the fault segment to
which intensity X has been evaluated above (zone
A). Therefore, macroseismic intensity in Beltir is
less than what could be expected taking into
account distance from the fault to the locality and
surface faulting parameters. From the panoramic
view of Beltir (Fig. 8b) it seems nothing serious hap-
pened there. But Figure 8c and d show extensive
EEE in the village: ground collapse and liquefac-
tion. The fact that buildings were not destroyed
can probably be explained by the special behaviour
of wooden constructions, which keep their integrity
even under high seismic loadings.
A couple of years before the earthquake an
expedition had been sent to the Altai region to
find evidence of palaeoearthquakes (Rogozhin &
Platonova 2002). The idea to check this region for
palaeoearthquakes follows from the short-term
seismic history and the inconsistency of the
maximum observed earthquake magnitudes in
the Russian and Mongolian parts of the Altai
 EEE: PRINCIPLES & CASE STUDIES 79

Fig. 5. Environmental effects and aftershocks of the Altai earthquake. (a) CMT solutions of largest aftershocks:
numbers give sequential order of earthquakes (1 is the mainshock). (b) Epicentre map.
80 R. E. TATEVOSSIAN ET AL.

Fig. 6. Photos of surface faulting associated with the Altai earthquake.

 EEE: PRINCIPLES & CASE STUDIES 81

Fig. 7. Photos of secondary EEE associated with the Altai earthquake: (a) rockfall, (b, d) landslides,
(c) ground collapse.

Mountains. In the Mongolian part, earthquakes with
M . 8 are known, while in the Russian part
maximum reported magnitudes were 6 or less. A
wealth of data were collected, which allowed 14C
dating. Some additional data were collected during
observations in the epicentral area of the Altai earth-
quake. The map in Figure 9 shows locations of all
the sites, where dating gives c. 1000 years BP .
From this area, we can deduce the palaeoearthquake
magnitude to be in the range 7.07.5 taking into
account uncertainties of relationships for magnitude
evaluation and accuracy of dating (we cannot
exclude the possibility that not all samples are
linked with one earthquake).
The Neftegorsk earthquake, 27 May 1995
The Neftegorsk earthquake (MS 7.4) occurred in
lowlands of Sakhalin Island. Topography is flat,
with the highest point in the epicentral area at c.
120 m a.s.l. The earthquake almost completely
destroyed the town of Neftegorsk. The seismic
history of the region is very short: it started practi-
cally together with instrumental seismology (the
82 R. E. TATEVOSSIAN ET AL.

Fig. 8. Macroseismic and environmental effects of the Altai earthquake. (a) Macroseismic (Arabic numerals; Goldin
et al. 2004) and EEE (Roman numerals) intensities. A and B are two zones with considerably different surface faulting
parameters. (b) Panoramic view of Beltir; (c) ground collapse and (d) liquefaction in Beltir.
 EEE: PRINCIPLES & CASE STUDIES 83

Fig. 9. Palaeoearthquake in the epicentral area of the Altai earthquake. (a) Site map, where palaeosoil dating gives
1000 BP (marked by diamonds). Star marks the site of photo in (b). (b) Segment of the surface faulting. Arrow points to
the place where the sample of palaeosoil for dating was taken.
84 R. E. TATEVOSSIAN ET AL.

first earthquake in the catalogue is dated to 1895).
The Neftegorsk earthquake occurred in a place
where magnitudes known in the vicinities of the
mainshock prior to 1995 are 2 units smaller.
Larger earthquakes with magnitudes greater than
7 are concentrated between Sakhalin and Hokkaido
islands (Fig. 10a). Most of the CMT solutions
correspond to strike-slip faults, some to thrust
faults (Fig. 10b).
The aftershock sequence of the Neftegorsk
earthquake is also unusual. But, in contrast to the
Altai earthquake sequence, the magnitude of the
largest aftershock is much smaller than could be
expected from Baths law: within six months after

Fig. 10. Geographical and seismotectonic settings of the epicentral area of the Neftegorsk earthquake. (a) Epicentre
map (black dots) for historical and instrumental times. Star shows position of the mainshock. (b) CMT solution
plots. The Nogliki 1964 earthquake (MS 5.5) is the largest that occurred in the vicinity of the Neftegorsk earthquake
(at c. 100 km distance).
 EEE: PRINCIPLES & CASE STUDIES 85

Fig. 11. Aftershocks and surface faulting of the Neftegorsk earthquake. (a) CMT solutions of largest aftershocks.
Numbers give sequential order of earthquakes (1 is the mainshock). Aftershocks 5 and 6 occurred nine months after the
mainshock. Abbreviations: CSF, Central Sakhalin Fault; SHF, Sakhalin-Hokkaido Fault; UPF, Upper Piltun Fault.
(b) Epicentre map. Solid black line marks trace of the surface fault.

the mainshock (MS 7.4) the biggest aftershock
was 5.0 (Fig. 11a). Later on, two shocks with
MS . 5 occurred in December 1995 and January
1996 but, because of the long time gap after the
mainshock, they can be considered as independent
earthquakes. Neither the mainshock nor any of the
aftershocks are associated with the global scale
Sakhalin-Hokkaido Fault, extending over 2000 km
(Rogozhin 1995). Surface faulting (see Fig. 12 for
details) shows that the source is associated with
the low-rank Upper Piltun Fault. Aftershock cloud
length is approximately 70 km, which is much
more than the surface rupture total length (46 km).
Therefore, only part (c. 65%) of the source rupture
was exposed in surface faulting (Fig. 11b). This situ-
ation is not exceptional: rare aftershock cloud length
coincides with surface rupture length. But even if
this difference is remarkable, the corresponding
EEE intensity is often the same or differs not more
than one degree.
The dominant type of faulting is strike-slip
(Fig. 12). Considerable thrusting occurs only at
fault terminals. Surface rupture is continuous,
except a small piece near Neftegorsk. But slip distri-
bution along the rupture is very inhomogeneous.
The central part (C), where practically pure
strike-slip movements were observed, shows
offset from 4 to 8 m (maximum 8.1 m). In parts B
and D the vertical and horizontal components of
slip are of the same order (though the horizontal is
everywhere larger); neither component exceeds
4 m (Fig. 12a, b) (Kozhurin & Streltsov 1995;
Shimamoto et al. 1995). The solid vertical bar in
Figure 12b is plotted at 3.9 m. This is the slip
amount consistent with CMT solution. The fault
segment A is the only piece separated from the
main rupture; horizontal and vertical offsets are
just a few centimetres. Secondary EEE appeared
occasionally, mostly in seashore sands, in the form
of liquefactions and ground collapse. They cannot
be used for I0 assessments because, as shown in
Tatevossian (2007), secondary effects that occurred
out of the area of maximum EEE are not representa-
tive for epicentral intensity.
In this case epicentral intensity assessment based
on EEE meets some difficulties. There is a certain
inconsistency between surface faulting length
(46 km) and maximum offset (8.1 m). They give
epicentral intensity X and XI respectively. One of
the reasons for such a discrepancy can be the fact,
86 R. E. TATEVOSSIAN ET AL.

Fig. 12. Surface faulting parameters and images. (a) Fault map. A, B, C, D are four segments with considerably
different slip parameters. In Arabic numerals are macroseismic intensities from Ivashchenko et al. (1995); in Roman
numerals are EEE intensities. (b) Vertical (dashed line) and horizontal (solid) offsets along the fault. (c) Photo of thrust
offset. (d) The strike-slip segment of the fault, viewed from a helicopter.

already mentioned, that the surface fault length is
only 65% of the aftershock cloud length, so it does
not represent the whole source. For a 70 km total
length the discrepancy would be less dramatic. The
other reason is the anomalously large offset for a
magnitude 7.4 seismic event likely caused by local
conditions. The epicentral intensity in the range
X XI gives the most consistent assessment both
with surface faulting total length and maximum slip.
Slip distribution over rupture length enables
differences in intensity to be recognized in the
central and marginal parts of surface faulting. Cor-
responding intensities for zones A D are marked
in Figure 12a.
Macroseismic and EEE intensities can be com-
pared for only one locality, Neftegorsk, which is
the only place where EEE were observed in close
vicinity to an inhabited locality. In principle, macro-
seismic and EEE intensities are mutually consistent:
both give VIII IX degree. But there was some
uncertainty in macroseismic intensity assessment
due to the problem of the accurate evaluation of vul-
nerability of constructions (Koff et al. 1995). This
problem is illustrated in Figure 13a and Table 3.
We get very incoherent intensity assessments
based on different building types. Compared with
the problems of intensity assessment based on
damage to buildings, one degree of uncertainty in
EEE epicentral intensity assessment is acceptable.
Gaps in spatial distribution of macroseismic data
are evident from Figure 13b. In densely populated
Europe it may be hard to imagine how large can
be the gaps in sparsely populated areas in other
parts of the world.
At the same distances, macroseismic intensities
north of the rupture zone are higher than to the
south. Probably we are dealing with some directivity
effect. This was also observed in the case of one of
the largest aftershocks, for which we have strong
motion records (Fig. 14). At two stations (NFG
and SNFG), located in the same source-station
azimuth, maximum acceleration of ground motion
(amax) recorded during the MS 4.7 aftershock is
practically the same, although the SNFG is twice
as far from the epicentre. Meanwhile, the amax at
station SAB, located at the same distance from the
epicentre as SNFG but in the opposite direction, is
almost twice as high.
 EEE: PRINCIPLES & CASE STUDIES
Fig. 13. Macroseismic effects of the Neftegorsk earthquake. (a) Panoramic view of Neftegorsk town. (b) Map of
localities that felt intensity IV and higher (from Ivashchenko et al. 1995). Dashed area shows the gap in
locality distribution.
In the fault zone of the Neftegorsk earthquake
several trenches were cut. Figure 15 shows evidence
of a palaeoearthquake. Carbon-14 dating of buried
palaeosoil cut by a liquefaction channel gives the
age 1800 BP (Rogozhin 1995).
Conclusions
Table 4 summarizes a comparison of the results of
the Altai and the Neftegorsk earthquake studies.
The seismicity pattern in the regions of both
earthquakes (low seismic activity in historic and
instrumental times together with evidence of
strong palaeoearthquakes in prehistoric times) stres-
ses the importance of the EEE-based intensity scale:
it is the only scale able to extend to the past our
knowledge of seismic history. Another reason sup-
porting the importance of the ESI 2007 scale is the
sparse distribution of localities in the epicentral
Table 3. Intensity assessment in Neftegorsk based
on damage to buildings
Building type Intensity
Complete collapse of 17 five-storey IX X
buildings (type A or A1)
Damage degree 3 4 to buildings of type B VIII
(5 buildings)
Damage degree 1 to type C7 (4 buildings) VII
Final assessment for the town VIII IX
Based on Koff et al. (1995).
87
areas of both earthquakes. The nearest locality in
the case of the Altai earthquake is approximately
7 km distant from the surface fault segment. Nefte-
gorsk town, the closest locality to the surface fault,
is situated at its terminus, where offset is only a few
centimetres, while maximum observed slip reaches
8.1 m. As a result, maximum observed intensities
based on damage in inhabited localities have a con-
siderably lower degree than epicentral intensities.
Both earthquakes again raise the problem of the
correct evaluation of the vulnerability of construc-
tions. For example, the intensity VIII assessed for
Beltir (Altai earthquake) may follow from the
specific behaviour of wooden buildings: they are
able to keep the integrity of the construction under
heavy seismic loading. Looking at ground collapse
in Beltir it is easy to imagine what would happen
there if there were concrete five-storey buildings,
which were completely ruined in Neftegorsk town.
But of course, all problems cannot be reduced
only to external factors, like construction quality:
the strong azimuthal dependence of amax found in
records for one of the largest aftershocks of the Nef-
tegorsk earthquake suggests that a specific main-
shock source or local structural properties can be
responsible for the observed asymmetry of the
spatial distribution of damage.
Testing the ESI 2007 scale shows that one of the
sources for inaccuracy in intensity assessment can
be related to strong aftershock(s) creating new, or
extending an existing segment of surface faulting
that occurred during the mainshock. But this is not
a problem of only EEE-based scale: macroseismic
effect also can have a cumulative nature, when a
strong aftershock follows the mainshock. Moreover,
 88
R. E. TATEVOSSIAN ET AL.
Fig. 14. Station map and strong motion records from MS 4.7 aftershock of the Neftegorsk earthquake at stations SAB, NFG and SNFG. The star marks epicentre position.
 EEE: PRINCIPLES & CASE STUDIES 89

Fig. 15. Evidence of palaeoearthquake in the fault zone of the Neftegorsk earthquake (after Rogozhin 1995).
(a) Photo of the trench. (b) Schematic cross-section Legend: 1, modern soil; 2, loam; 3, white quartz sand; 4, buried
palaeosoil (hard); 5, buried palaeosoil (loose); 6, yellow sand; 7, main fault plane; 8, auxiliary fault plane; 9, places
from which palaeosoil samples were taken for 14C dating.

the cumulative effects can be stronger in the case of
damage to buildings, as aftershock affects buildings
already weakened by the seismic loading from
the mainshock.
When assessing I0, it should be remembered that
the whole source rupture length is not always
manifested in surface faulting. This can bring con-
siderable inconsistency between the surface faulting
length and maximum offset along it. The most
coherent I0 assessment in such cases would be to
give a range of intensity grades, corresponding to
each of the parameters. Probably the weighting
should be introduced giving higher impact to the
offset value.
The total area of secondary EEE type can be used
to evaluate I0 but this assessment can be reliable
only if the conditions are favourable for their
occurrence. For example, in the case of the Altai
earthquake, intensity assessments based on
primary and secondary EEE are coherent, while
90 R. E. TATEVOSSIAN ET AL.

Table 4. Comparison of Neftegorsk and Altai earthquakes

Feature Altai, 2003 Neftegorsk, 1995

1. Seismicity pattern The earthquake magnitude is 1.3 units
larger than ever observed in its
epicentral area. In the same
seismotectonic zone, at much larger
distances, very big earthquakes are
known (gigantic seismic events in
Mongolian Altai).
2. Palaeoearthquakes Seismic history of the region is short.
Addressing palaeoearthquake data
completely changes our evaluation of
the seismicity pattern. Evidence of
M  7.5 earthquakes found 1000 BP.
3. Aftershock Anomalous aftershock sequence: high
sequence magnitude swarm (3 events with MS
6.6 7.4 in 3 days).
4. Surface faulting Surface faulting length is 70 km.
parameters Dominant type is strike-slip (maximum
slip 2 m), maximum vertical offset is
60 cm. According to the aftershock
distrnhibution the whole source
exposed in surface faulting.
5. Epicentral Intensive secondary effects (landslides,
intensity rockfalls, ground cracks) accompany
assessment the zone of surface faulting. Their total
area can be used to assess I0. It is
consistent with assessment based on
surface faulting length and offset X
degrees.
6. Macroseismic and Macroseismic intensity assessment faced
EEE intensity considerable problems in correct
relationships evaluation of vulnerability of wooden
buildings.
The earthquake magnitude is 1.9 units
larger than maximum ever observed in
its epicentral area. In the same
seismotectonic zone, at much larger
distances, very big earthquakes are
known (M  7 seismic events between
Sakhalin and Hokkaido islands).
Seismic history of the region is short.
Addressing palaeoearthquake data
completely changes our evaluation of
the seismicity pattern. Evidence of
M  7.5 earthquakes is found 1800 BP.
Anomalous aftershock sequence: very
large (2.4 units) gap between
mainshock and largest aftershock
magnitudes (in 6 months).
Surface faulting length is 46 km. Almost
pure strike-slip (maximum slip 8.1 m),
vertical offsets are observed only at
surface fault terminals (maximum
2 m). According to the aftershock
distribution c. 65% of the source
exposed in surface faulting.
Secondary EEE were observed
occasionally (mostly liquefactions
along seashore). They cannot be used
for I0 assessment. I0 based on surface
faulting length is X, based on
maximum offset XI. Offset,
consistent with M0, gives I0 X.
Intensity assessment in Neftegorsk
demonstrates problems to get coherent
intensity assessment for different
construction types. The range of
intensities spans from VII to IX X.

for the Neftegorsk earthquake secondary EEE
(mostly liquefactions) occurred occasionally in
seashore sands and give very little information for
I0 assessment.
The main reason why environmental effects
were excluded from intensity assessments (e.g. in
EMS 98) is their instability: EEE can be found in
a very wide range of intensities. But this is true
mostly for secondary EEE types. Moreover, this
instability comes from a lack of statistical approach.
Indeed, when the intensity assessment is deduced
from a single EEE (a single landslide) its volume
can be strongly affected by vulnerability of the
slope. But when different levels of spatial generali-
zation of information are introduced (Fig. 1b) the
assessments become more stable. On the other
hand, the dependence of intensity assessments on
vulnerability is inherent to macroseismic effects:
intensity assessment in Neftegorsk ranges within
four degrees, depending on building types taken
into account for that purpose (Fig. 13, Table 3).
Finally, if the environmental effects were
ignored we get I0 VIII IX for the Neftegorsk
earthquake: this for an earthquake that produced
8.1 m of slip at the surface. What engineering con-
struction can stand such an offset, being built just
over the surface fault? And what should we expect
(how many metres of surface fault offset) from I0
X, or XI, if intensity VIII IX is ascribed to an earth-
quake generating 8.1 m of offset? By excluding the
environmental effects, especially primary EEE, we
not only miss a valuable piece of information, some-
times the only one available in sparsely populated
areas, we also miss the low frequency (static)
content of an earthquake impact. Any macroseismic
scale based only on degree of damage to man-made
constructions emphasizes the vibrational part
(ground acceleration) of the earthquake impact.
 EEE: PRINCIPLES & CASE STUDIES
This simplification helps to construct a coherent
intensity scale. In the far field, where static defor-
mations are negligible, such an approach can be
considered reasonable. But in the epicentral area,
where the static offset reaches the order of several
metres, intensity assessments ignoring this com-
ponent are useless. Therefore, taking into account
environmental effects in intensity scales is an essen-
tial requirement in densely populated areas also: it
follows from the complex nature of an earthquake
impact, which spans a very broad frequency range,
including static deformations.
This work is partly supported by RFBR grants
07-05-00702a, 08-05-00103a and 08-05-00598a. The
authors would like to express gratitude to Leonello Serva
and Vladimir Trifonov for careful revision of the manu-
script and helpful remarks.
References
A REFIEV , S. S., A PTEKMAN , Z. Y. ET AL . 2006. The
source and aftershocks of the Altai (Chuya) earthquake
of 2003. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 42(2),
167177.
B ATH , M. 1965. Lateral inhomogeneities of the upper
mantle. Tectonophysics, 2(6), 483 514.
CMT CATALOG . 2008. Global Centroid Moment Tensor
database (formerly Harvard CMT catalog). Available
at: http://www.globalcmt.org
D ENGLER , L. & M C P HERSON , R. 1993. The 17 August
1991 Honeydaw earthquake North Coast California:
a case for revising the Modified Mercalli Scale in
sparsely populated areas. BSSA, 83, 10811094.
G OL DIN , S. V., S ELEZNEV , V. S. ET AL . 2004. The Chuya
(Altai) earthquake in 2003: Materials of seismological
survey. In: GLIKO , A. O. (ed.) Silnoye zemletryase-
niye na Altaye. IFZ RAN, Moscow, 5560 [in
Russian].
G RUNTHAL , G. (ed.) 1998. European Macroseismic Scale
1998. Cahiers du Centre Europeen de Geodynamique
et de Seismologie, 15, Luxembourg.
G UERRIERI , L. & V ITTORI , E. (eds) 2007. Intensity scale
ESI2007. Memorie descritive della carta geologica
dItalia, LXXIV.
G UERRIERI , L., T ATEVOSSIAN , R. ET AL . 2007. Earth-
quake environmental effects (EEE) and intensity
assessment: the INQUA scale project. Bollettino
della Societa Geologica Italiana, 126(2) 375386.
91
I NTERNATIONAL S EISMOLOGICAL C ENTRE . 2003.
On-line Bulletin. Available at: http://www.isc.ac.uk/
Bull. ISC, Thatcham, UK.
I VASHCHENKO , A. I., K UZNETSOV , D. P. ET AL . 1995.
The Neftegorsk 27(28) May, 1995, earthquake in
Sakhalin. In: Federalnaya sistema seismologicheskikh
nablyudeniy i prognoza zemletryaseniy. Neftegorskoye
zemletryaseniye 27 (28).05.1995, Moskva, 4867 [in
Russian].
K OFF , G. L., K OTLOV , V. F., T EN SU MUN , L ADONTSEV ,
E. A. & S HAKHRAMAN YAN , M. A. 1995. Engi-
neering analyses of macroseismic consequences
of the Neftegorsk 27(28).05.95 earthquake. In:
Federalnaya sistema seismologicheskikh nablyudeniy
i prognoza zemletryaseniy. Neftegorskoye zemletrya-
seniye 27 (28).05.1995, Moskva, 139154 [in
Russian].
K OZHURIN , A. I. & S TREL TSOV , M. I. 1995.
Seismotectonic manifestations of the earthquake
in May 27(28), 1995 in Northern Sakhalin. In:
Federalnaya sistema seismologicheskikh nablyu-
deniy i prognoza zemletryaseniy. Neftegorskoye
zemletryaseniye 27 (28).05.1995, Moskva, 95100
[in Russian].
M ICHETTI , A. M., E SPOSITO , E. ET AL . 2004. The INQUA
scale. An innovative approach for assessing earthquake
intensities based on seismically-induced ground effects
in natural environment. Memorie descritive della carta
geologica dItalia, LXVII.
R OGOZHIN , E. A. 1995. The Neftegorsk, May 27 (28),
1995, earthquake: Geological effects and tectonic
setting of the source. In: Federalnaya sistema seismo-
logicheskikh nablyudeniy i prognoza zemletryaseniy.
Neftegorskoye zemletryaseniye 27 (28).05.1995,
Moskva, 80 94 [in Russian].
R OGOZHIN , E. A. & P LATONOVA , S. G. 2002. Source
zones of strong earthquakes in Altai Mountains in
Holocene. IFZ RAN, Moscow [in Russian].
R OGOZHIN , E. A., O VSYUCHENKO , A. N., M ARAKHA-
NOV , A. V. & U SHANOVA , E. A. 2007. Tectonic
position and geological features of the Altai, 2003,
earthquake. Geotektonika, 2, 3 22. [in Russian].
S HIMAMOTO , T., V ATANABE , M. & S UDZUKI , Y. 1995.
Surface faulting of the Neftegorsk May 27(28), 1995,
earthquake. In: Federalnaya sistema seismologiches-
kikh nablyudeniy i prognoza zemletryaseniy. Nefte-
gorskoye zemletryaseniye 27 (28).05.1995, Moskva,
101 116 [in Russian].
T ATEVOSSIAN , R. E. 2007. The Verny, 1887, earthquake
in Central Asia: Application of the INQUA scale based
on coseismic environmental effects. Quaternary Inter-
national, 173 174, 23 29.