Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

Prediction of the seismic manifestations of Vrancea earthquakes in Moscow

  • V. I. UlomovEmail author


According to the normative maps of the General Seismic Zoning in the Russian Federation, OSR-97, the Moscow metropolitan area is situated within the 5 point seismic zone. Of highest hazard priority for tall buildings in Moscow are the low-frequency vibrations proceeding from the deep sources of strong earthquakes that occur in the East Carpathians (the Vrancea zone, Romania) at a distance of approximately 1350 km from Moscow. Accelerations of the ground vibrations in Moscow are found from the analysis of seismic signals produced by Mw = 5.0 to Mw = 7.4 Vrancea earthquakes and recorded at the Moskva seismic station. Extrapolation of the parameters of the weak and moderate earthquakes towards stronger seismic events provides an estimate for the maximum expected horizontal accelerations of Ahor = 2.3 cm/s2 in case of the Mw = 8.0 Vrancea earthquake. The synthetic accelerogram of the maximum possible effect on the benchmark soils of Moscow is calculated. The displacements of the ground are multidimensional and not necessarily oriented strictly towards the seismic source. These inferences suggest that the MSK-64 macroseismic scale be corrected and the Construction Norms and Regulations, SNIP II-7-81*, be updated with regard to the hazard assessment of low-frequency seismic effects of 5 point and weaker seismic events including those caused by distant earthquakes.

Key words

prediction of seismic hazard seismic manifestations in Moscow synthetic accelerogram 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    F. F. Aptikaev, “The Problems of Elaboration of Seismic Scale of the New Generation,” Vulkanol. Seismol., No. 4–5, 23–28 (1999).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. F. Aptikaev and O. O. Erteleva, “Generation of Artificial Accelerograms by the Method of Scaling of Real Accelerograms,” Fiz. Zemli, No. 7, 39–45 (2002).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. V. Drumya, N. Ya. Stepanenko, and N. A. Simonova, “The Maximum Earthquakes of the Carpathian Region in the 18th–20th Century,” Buletinul Institutului de Geofizica si Geologie al ASM, No. 1, 37–64 (2006).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. A. Gusev and L. S. Shumilina, “Modeling of Correlation Rank-Magnitude-Distance on the Basis of Idea about the Incoherent Extensive Earthquake Source,” Vulkanol. Seismol., No.4–5, 29–40 (1999).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moscow: Geology and City, Ed. by V. I. Osipov and O. P. Medvedev (Joint Company “Moscow Textbooks and Cartography”, Moscow, 1997) pp. 1–400.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seismic Zoning of the Territory of the Russian Federation. Map M 1: 8000000 on the Four Sheets, Ed. by V. N. Strakhov and V. I. Ulomov (OIFZ-RUSSIAN FEDERAL GEODESIC AND CARTOGRAPHIC SERVICE, Moscow, 2000).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    SNIP II-7-81* (Construction Norms and Regulations). Building in the Seismic Regions. State Committee on Questions of Architecture and Construction of the Russian Federation (State Unitary Enterprise TsPP, Moscow, 2000) pp. 1–44 (Appendix with 10 maps).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tentative Recommendations on Specification of Loads and Impacts on the Multifunctional High-Rise Buildings and Complexes in Moscow—MDS 20-1 2006 (Federal State Unitary Enterprise, Scientific Research Center “Building”, Moscow, 2006).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. I. Ulomov, “About Seismic Impacts on the High-Rise Buildings and Constructions in Moscow,” Building Materials, Equipment, and Technologies of the 21st Century, No. 2, 109 (2008).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. I. Ulomov, “Low-Frequency Seismic Impacts on the High-Rise Buildings in Moscow from the Distant Sources of Strong Earthquakes,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference-Exhibition “Contemporary Systems and the Means of Complex Safety and Fire-Prevention of the Objects of Building”, November 21–22, 2007, Moscow (The Center of New Construction Technologies, Materials and Equipment of Moskomarkhitektura, Moscow, 2007) pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. I. Ulomov, V. V. Sevost’yanov, I. G. Mindel, and B. A. Trifonov, “Estimation of Seismic Hazard for the High-Rise Buildings in Moscow,” in Contemporary High-Rise Building, (State Unitary Enterprise “ITTS Moskomarkhitektura”, Moscow, 2007) pp. 94–100.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. I. Ulomov and L. S. Shumilina, in Problems of the Seismic Zoning of the Territory of Russia (All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of the Problems of Scientific and Technical Progress and Information in Building (VNIINTPI) of the State Committee on Questions of Architecture and Construction of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 1999a) pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. I. Ulomov and L. S. Shumilina, in Set of Maps of the General Seismic Zoning of the Territory of the Russian Federation, OSR-97. Scale 1:8000000. Explanatory Note and the List of Cities and Populated Areas, Located in Earthquake-Hazard Regions (Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences (OIFZ), Moscow, 1999b) pp. 1–57.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. J. Wald, V. Quitoriano, T. H. Heaton, and H. Kanamori, “Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity for Earthquakes in California,” Earthquake Spectra, 15(3) 557–564 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Physics of the EarthRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations