Fuzzy sets and big data in three-dimensional interpretation of seismic zoning

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Natural hazards and disasters are destructive, lead to serious material damage and a large number of casualties, and in most cases occur suddenly. One of these hazardous natural disasters is earthquakes. The article is devoted to studying the possibility of using fuzzy sets for processing Big Data to reduce the destructive consequences of earthquakes. The article proposes a new possible approach to interpreting the results of seismic zoning of the territory of the Russian Federation and neighboring countries.

The article is based on the materials of the scientific report made at the All-Russian Scientific Conference “Hazardous Natural Phenomena and Disasters: Causes, Consequences, Prevention Possibilities (Laverov Readings – 2024)”.

About the authors

A. D. Gvishiani

Geophysical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Sсhmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: a.gvishiani@gcras.ru

академик РАН, научный руководитель

Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

N. A. Fomenko

Geophysical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: n.fomenko@gcras.ru

кандидат технических наук, старший научный сотрудник

Russian Federation, Moscow

B. A. Dzeboev

Geophysical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Sсhmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: b.dzeboev@gcras.ru

доктор физико-математических наук, заместитель директора по науке

Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

References

  1. The Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters, 2023. State report “On the state of protection of the population and territories of the Russian Federation from natural and man-made emergencies in 2022”. https://mchs.gov.ru/dokumenty/6751 (date of access: 04/22/2024). (In Russ.)
  2. RBC, 2023. $383 million a day: how humanity is paying for natural disasters. https://pro.rbc.ru/demo/64ede4ec9a794782cf04ada5 (date of access: 04/22/2024). (In Russ.)
  3. Simons M., Minson S., Sladen A. et al. The 2011 Magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake: Mosaicking the Megathrust from Seconds to Centuries // Science. 2011, v. 332, is. 6036, pp. 1421–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.1206731.
  4. RIA Novosti, 2013. Earthquake in Japan on March 11, 2011: chronicle of events. https://ria.ru/20130311/926334197.html (date of access: 04/22/2024). (In Russ.)
  5. RBC, 2011. Japan revealed how many citizens died in the March disaster. https://www.rbc.ru/spb_sz/16/05/2011/559299809a794719538c130d (date of access: 04/22/2024). (In Russ.)
  6. RIA Novosti, 2012. Meeting on the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant opened in Japan. https://ria.ru/20120224/573514710.html (date of access: 04/22/2024). (In Russ.)
  7. Kanamori H. The Kobe (Hyogo-ken Nanbu), Japan, Earthquake of January 16, 1995 // Seismological Research Letters. 1995, v. 66, is. 2, pp. 6–10. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.66.2.6.
  8. Holzer Th. L. The 1995 Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe), Japan, Earthquake // GSA TODAY. 1995, v. 5, no. 8, pp. 153–167.
  9. RIA Novosti, 2020. Destructive earthquake in Kobe (Japan) on January 17, 1995. https://ria.ru/20200117/1563433390.html (date of access: 04/22/2024). (In Russ.)
  10. Dal Zilio L., Ampuero J.P. Earthquake doublet in Turkey and Syria // Communications Earth & Environment. 2023, v. 4, 71. doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-00747-z.
  11. Mikhailov V.O., Babayants I.P., Volkova M.S. et al. Reconstruction of Co-Seismic and Post-Seismic Processes for the February 6, 2023 Earthquake in Turkey from Data of Satellite SAR Interferometry // Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth. 2023, v. 59, is. 6, pp. 888–898. doi: 10.1134/S1069351323060113.
  12. RBC, 2024. What Türkiye looks like a year after the earthquake. RBC report. https://www.rbc.ru/society/06/02/2024/65c293349a79473a72e780dd?from=story_63e0ddb99a7947396ecaa33c (access date 04/22/2024). (In Russ.)
  13. RBC, 2023. In Turkey, defects were found in the structures of houses destroyed by an earthquake. https://www.rbc.ru/society/10/02/2023/63e6799c9a79473a86822510 (access date 04/22/2024). (In Russ.)
  14. SP 14.13330.2018. Set of rules. Construction in seismic areas. Updated edition of SNiP II-7-81*. Moscow: Rosstandart, 2018. (In Russ.)
  15. Ulomov V.I. Seismic hazard of Northern Eurasia // Annali di Geofisica. 1999, v. 42, is. 6, pp. 1023–1038.
  16. Giardini D. The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) – 1992/1999 // Annali di Geofisica. 1999, v. 42, is. 6, pp. 957–974. doi: 10.4401/ag-3780.
  17. Cisternas A., Philip H., Bousquet J.C. et al. The Spitak (Armenia) earthquake of 7 December 1988: field observations, seismology and tectonics // Nature. 1989, v. 339, pp. 675–679. doi: 10.1038/339675a0.
  18. Laverov N.P., Leonov Yu.G., Makosko A.A. et al. Proposals for the development and modernization of the system of seismological observations and earthquake prediction // Problems of national security. Expert opinions. Analytical materials. Proposals / General ed. acad. N.P. Laverov. Moscow: Nauka, 2008. Pp. 206–232. (In Russ.)
  19. Explanatory note to the set of maps of the General seismic zoning of the territory of the Russian Federation GSZ-2016 // Engineering survey. 2016, no. 7, pp. 49–122. (In Russ.)
  20. Shebalin P.N., Gvishiani A.D., Dzeboev B.A., Skorkina A.A. Why Are New Approaches to Seismic Hazard Assessment Required? // Doklady Earth Sciences. 2022, v. 507, part 1, pp. 930–935. doi: 10.1134/S1028334X22700362.
  21. Shestoperov G.S. On the shortcomings of general seismic zoning maps of Russia // GeoInfo. 2020, pp. 1–8. (In Russ.)
  22. Medvedev S.V., Shponheuer V., Karnik V. Seismic intensity scale MSK-64. Moscow: Interdepartmental Geophysical Committee under the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1964. (In Russ.)
  23. Shebalin N.V., Aptikaev F.F. Development of MSK type scales // Scales and methods in macroseismic. 2003, pp. 210–253. (In Russ.)
  24. Wood H.O., Neumann F. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 // Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1931, v. 21, pp. 277–283.
  25. Grunthal G. (Ed.) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 EMS-98. ESC, Subcommission on Engineering Seismology, Working Group Macroseismic Scale. Luxembourg, 1998.
  26. Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy sets // Information and Control. 1965. V. 8. P. 338–353.
  27. Dubois J., Gvishiani A. Dynamic Systems and Dynamic Classification Problems in Geophysical Applications. Paris: Springer-Verlag, 1998. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-49951-7.
  28. Gvishiani A.D., Panchenko V.Ya., Nikitina I.M. System analysis of big data for Earth sciences // Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2023, v. 93, no. 6, pp. 518–525. (In Russ.)
  29. Gvishiani A.D., Dobrovolsky M.N., Dzeranov B.V., Dzeboev B.A. Big Data in Geophysics and Other Earth Sciences // Izvestiya. Physics of the Solid Earth. 2022, v. 58, is. 1, pp. 1–29. doi: 10.1134/S1069351322010037.
  30. Mayer-Schoenberger V.M., Kukier K. Big data. A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Moscow. Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, 2014. (In Russ.)
  31. Gvishiani A.D., Dzeranov B.V., Skorkina A.A., Dzeboev B.A. World Seismic Networks and Earthquake Catalogs // Russian Journal of Earth Sciences (RJES). 2024, v. 24, is. 1, ES1012. doi: 10.2205/2024es000901.
  32. Dzeboev B.A., Gvishiani A.D., Agayan S.M. et al. System-Analytical Method of Earthquake-Prone Areas Recognition // Applied Sciences. 2021, v. 11, 7972. doi: 10.3390/app11177972.
  33. Gvishiani A.D., Gorshkov A.I., Rantsman E.Ya. et al. Recognition of Earthquake_Prone Areas in the Regions of Moderate Seismicity. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. (In Russ.)
  34. Gvishiani A.D., Soloviev A.A., Dzeboev B.A. Problem of Recognition of Strong-Earthquake-Prone Areas: a State-of-the-Art Review // Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth. 2020, v. 56, is. 1, pp. 1–23. doi: 10.1134/S1069351320010048.
  35. Rozenberg I.N., Dulin S.K. Current Issues Problems of Geoinformatics // Russian Journal of Earth Sciences. 2024, v. 24, is. 1. doi: 10.2205/2024ES000893.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. The number of natural disasters in the world for the period 1990-2019 [ ]

Download (18KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. An example of a seismic zoning map from the set of regulatory maps of the OSR-2016 [ ]

Download (32KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. The 12-point Medvedev–Sponheuer–Karnik scale (MSK-64). General characteristics of the points zones

Download (42KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. i-point zone of 3D seismic zoning – fuzzy set FX (Si) = {Si, µSi}

Download (17KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences