Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconnaissance surveys after June 2022 Khost earthquake in Afghanistan: implication towards seismic vulnerability assessment for future design

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Khost earthquake in Afghanistan on 22 June 2022 was one of the deadliest, resulting in over 1500 deaths, 3500 injuries, and the collapse of 15,000 houses in the rural areas of Paktika and Khost provinces. This event provided an opportunity to investigate the damage to residential buildings and public infrastructure. A post-earthquake reconnaissance survey was conducted 2 days after the event in Gayan, Barmal, and Spera. Damage data were collected during the survey and field investigation, indicating that more than 50% of the houses and public infrastructures had completely collapsed. For damaged sites, a one-dimensional seismic response analysis is performed, which provides a link to understanding the damage scenario across the province. Further, the rapid damage assessment data were employed to propose vulnerability function for rural houses, which highlighted the probability of damage for various damage grades under varying seismic environments and building material characterisation. The damage probabilities rise to 17.5%, 45.5%, and 11% for slight, moderate, and heavy damage, respectively, indicating that the examined houses retain their basic performance but may sustain some moderate damage at this level of earthquake intensity. The shortest source-to-site distance, poor-quality construction materials, and an irregular town layout were the main issues identified during the surveys and are thought to have had a significant impact on the extent of the destruction. The data set and vulnerability functions provided will aid in assessing earthquake hazards in this region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data sets generated and/or analysed during the current study are provided in the manuscript.

References

  1. Alvan HV, Mansor S, Omar H, Azad FH (2014) Precursory signals associated with the 2010 M8 8. Bio-Bio earthquake (Chile) and the 2010 M7. 2 Baja California earthquake (Mexico). Arab J Geosci 7(11):4889–4897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ansari A, Seshagiri Rao K, Jain AK (2022) Damage assessment of tunnels in seismic prone zone during earthquakes: a part of hazard evaluation. Earthquakes and structures: select proceedings of 7th ICRAGEE 2021. Springer, Singapore, pp 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5673-6_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Ansari A, Rao KS, Jain AK (2022) Seismic vulnerability of tunnels in Jammu and Kashmir during post-seismic functionality. Geotech Geol Eng 40(11):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02341-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ansari A, Rao KS, Jain AK, Ansari A (2022) Deep learning model for predicting tunnel damages and track serviceability under seismic environment. Model Earth Syst Environ 8(4):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-022-01556-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ansari A, Zahoor F, Rao KS, Jain AK (2022) Liquefaction hazard assessment in a seismically active region of Himalayas using geotechnical and geophysical investigations: a case study of the Jammu Region. Bull Eng Geol Env 81(9):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ansari A, Rao KS, Jain AK (2022) Seismic analysis of shallow tunnels in soil medium. Stability of slopes and underground excavations. Springer, Singapore, pp 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5601-9_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Khalil U, Aslam B, Maqsoom A (2021) Afghanistan earthquake 2015 aftershocks analysis for a better understanding of the seismicity behavior for future assessment. Acta Geophys 69(4):1189–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Di Ludovico M, Digrisolo A, Moroni C, Graziotti F, Manfredi V, Prota A, Dolce M, Manfredi G (2019) Remarks on damage and response of school buildings after the Central Italy earthquake sequence. Bull Earthq Eng 17(10):5679–5700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ruggieri S, Tosto C, Rosati G, Uva G, Ferro GA (2022) Seismic vulnerability analysis of Masonry Churches in Piemonte after 2003 Valle Scrivia earthquake: post-event screening and situation 17 years later. Int J Archit Herit 16(5):717–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ansari A, Satake K, Malik JN (2017) Modelling the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami to estimate tsunami heights and its amplitude and to study its effects on coastal areas. In: Proceedings of the ERI Earthquake Conference. University of Tokyo, Japan

  11. Bourdim SMEA, Boumechra N, Djedid A, Rodrigues H (2022) Effect of spatio-temporal variability of the seismic signal on the dynamic pressure behind retaining walls. Innov Infrastruct Solut 7(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Contreras D, Wilkinson S, James P (2021) Earthquake reconnaissance data sources, a literature review. Earth 2(4):1006–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dellow GD, Ali Q, Ali SM, Hussain S, Khazai B, Nisar A (2007) Preliminary reconnaissance report for the Kashmir earthquake of 8 October 2005. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 40(1):18–24

    Google Scholar 

  14. Durrani AJ, Elnashai AS, Hashash Y, Kim SJ, Masud A (2005) The Kashmir earthquake of October 8, 2005: a quick look report. MAE Center CD Release 05-04

  15. Forcellini D (2020) The Role of the water level in the assessment of seismic vulnerability for the 23 November 1980 Irpinia–Basilicata earthquake. Geosciences 10(6):229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ismail N, Khattak N (2016) Building typologies prevalent in Northern Pakistan and their performance during the 2015 Hindu Kush Earthquake. Earthq Spectra 32(4):2473–2493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaiser A, Van Houtte C, Perrin N, Wotherspoon L, McVerry G (2017) Site characterisation of GeoNet stations for the New Zealand strong motion database. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 50(1):39–49

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rai DC, Singhal V, Raj SB, Sagar SL (2016) Reconnaissance of the effects of the M7. 8 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of April 25, 2015. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 7(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shakya M, Kawan CK, Gaire AK, Duwal S (2021) Post-earthquake damage assessment of traditional masonry buildings: a case study of Bhaktapur municipality following 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake. Eng Fail Anal 123:105277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sharma K, Deng L, Khadka D (2019) Reconnaissance of liquefaction case studies in 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake and assessment of liquefaction susceptibility. Int J Geotech Eng 13(4):326–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Assimaki D, Kausel E, Gazetas G (2005) Soil-dependent topographic effects: a case study from the 1999 Athens earthquake. Earthq Spectra 21(4):929–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Firat S, Isik NS, Arman H, Demir M, Vural I (2016) Investigation of the soil amplification factor in the Adapazari region. Bull Eng Geol Env 75(1):141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mashal M, White S, Palermo A (2016) Quasi-static cyclic testing of emulative cast-in-place connections for accelerated bridge construction in seismic regions. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 49(3):267–282

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tena-Colunga A (2021) Conditions of structural irregularity relationships with observed earthquake damage in Mexico City in 2017. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 143:106630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tezcan SS, Yerlici V, Durguno HT (1978) A reconnaissance report for the Romanian earthquake of 4 March 1977. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 6(4):397–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kumar S, Vig R, Kapur P (2018) Development of earthquake event detection technique based on STA/LTA algorithm for seismic alert system. J Geol Soc India 92(6):679–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nowroozi AA (1972) Focal mechanism of earthquakes in Persia, Turkey, West Pakistan, and Afghanistan and plate tectonics of the Middle East. Bull Seismol Soc Am 62(3):823–850

    Google Scholar 

  28. Farah A, Abbas G, De Jong KA, Lawrence RD (1984) Evolution of the lithosphere in Pakistan. Tectonophysics 105(1–4):207–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mandal P (2021) Lessons learned from the occurrences of major devastating Mw ≥ 7.5 earthquakes in the Asian countries during the last 25 years. J Geol Soc India 97(12):1494–1497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Meigooni FS, Tehranizadeh M (2022) Assessment of new vector intensity measures for the seismic evaluation of low-rise frames by considering near-field aftershock effects. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 46(3):2289–2300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mokhtari M, Abdollahie Fard I, Hessami K (2008) Structural elements of the Makran region, Oman sea and their potential relevance to tsunamigenisis. Nat Hazards 47(2):185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shakib H, Dardaei S, Farhangian H, Torkanbouri NE (2021) Seismological aspects and seismic behavior of buildings during the M 7.3 Western Iran earthquake in Sarpol-e-zahab region. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 1–17, 46

  33. Arooje R, Burridge N (2020) School education in Afghanistan: overcoming the challenges of a fragile state. Handbook of education systems in South Asia. Springer, Singapore, pp 1–33

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jiang D, Zhang S, Ding Ri (2020) Surface deformation and tectonic ackground of the 2019 Ms 6.0 Changning earthquake, Sichuan Basin, SW China. J Asian Earth Sci 200:104493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Khan MY, Shah MA, Khanam F (2021) Earthquake stochastic modeling and estimating the probabilities of earthquake occurrences in Hindu Kush region. Arab J Geosci 14(3):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rao VD, Choudhury D (2018) Prediction of earthquake occurrence for a new nuclear power plant in India using probabilistic models. Innov Infrastruct Solut 3(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rashid M, Dhakal RP, Sullivan T, Yeow T (2022) Seismic performance characterization of fire sprinkler piping systems through shake table testing. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 55(3):167–182

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shahbazi P, Mansouri B (2021) Grid source event-based seismic hazard assessment of Iran. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 45(2):1109–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Amin M, Warnitchai P, Kajita Y (2020) Seismic performance of highway bridges considering sacrificial abutment: a case study in Afghanistan. Innov Infrastruct Solut 5(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rao KS, Ansari A, Zaray AH (2022) Deadliest earthquake in 2022: the Afghanistan earthquake on June 22nd, 2022 IGS NEWS April–June 2022. Bull Indian Geotech Soc 54(2):10–11

    Google Scholar 

  41. Brookshire DS, Chang SE, Cochrane H, Olson RA, Rose A, Steenson J (1997) Direct and indirect economic losses from earthquake damage. Earthq Spectra 13(4):683–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hashash YMA, Groholski DR, Philips CA, Park D (2008) DEEPSOIL v3.5beta. University of Illinois, U.C, User manual and tutorial

  43. Esmaeilabadi R, Abasszadeh Shahri A, Behzadafshar K, Gheirati A, Nosrati Nasrabadi J (2015) Frequency content analysis of the probable earthquake in Kopet Dagh region—Northeast of Iran. Arab J Geosci 8(6):3833–3844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Seed HB, Sun JI (1989) Implications of site effects in the Mexico City earthquake of Sept. 19, 1985 for earthquake-resistant design criteria in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research Center

  45. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report EERC 70–10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley

  46. Esmaeilabadi R, Shahri AA (2016) Prediction of site response spectrum under earthquake vibration using an optimized developed artificial neural network model. Adv Sci Technol Res J 10(30):76–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Falcone G, Naso G, Mori F, Mendicelli A, Acunzo G, Peronace E, Moscatelli M (2021) Effect of base conditions in one-dimensional numerical simulation of seismic site response: a technical note for best practice. GeoHazards 2(4):430–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shahri AA, Esfandiyari B, Rajablou R (2012) A proposed geotechnical-based method for evaluation of liquefaction potential analysis subjected to earthquake provocations (case study: Korzan earth dam, Hamedan province, Iran). Arab J Geosci 4(5):555–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Phillips C, Hashash YM (2009) Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(7):1143–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rathje EM, Kottke AR, Trent WL (2010) Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(4):607–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) (2001) Seismic fragility formulations for water systems, part 1—guideline. ASCE-FEMA, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  52. National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), HAZUS (2004) Technical manuals. Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Institute of Building Science, Washington, DC, USA

  53. Ansari A, Rao KS, Jain AK (2022) Damage analysis of seismic response of shallow tunnels in Jammu. In: Recent Developments in Sustainable Infrastructure (ICRDSI-2020)—GEO-TRA-ENV-WRM: Conference Proceedings from ICRDSI-2020, vol 2. Springer, Singapore, pp 611–619

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the medical staff of Government Hospitals in Gayan and Baramal for providing fatality data.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India

    Abdullah Ansari, Abdul Habib Zaray, K. S. Rao, A. K. Jain & Parvez Ahmad Hashmat

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan

    Abdul Habib Zaray, Parvez Ahmad Hashmat & Mohammad Karam Ikram

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani, Thailand

    Mohammad Karam Ikram & Abdul Wahid Wahidi

  4. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India

    Mohammad Karam Ikram

  5. Department of Civil Engineering, Kabul University, Kabul, Afghanistan

    Abdul Wahid Wahidi

Authors
  1. Abdullah Ansari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdul Habib Zaray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. S. Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. K. Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Parvez Ahmad Hashmat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohammad Karam Ikram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Abdul Wahid Wahidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception, visualisation, methodology, and design aspects of this study. Data processing, analysis and interpretation were performed by AA and AHZ. Field surveys were conducted by AHZ and PAH. The first draft of the manuscript was written by the AA, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdullah Ansari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants and animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all authors.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ansari, A., Zaray, A.H., Rao, K.S. et al. Reconnaissance surveys after June 2022 Khost earthquake in Afghanistan: implication towards seismic vulnerability assessment for future design. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 8, 108 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01077-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01077-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation