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

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 toinvestigate the damage to residential buildings and public infrastructure. A post-earthquake reconnaissance survey was con-ducted 2 days after the event in Gayan, Barmal, and Spera. Damage data were collected during the survey and field investiga-tion, indicating that more than 50% of the houses and public infrastructures had completely collapsed. For damaged sites, aone-dimensional seismic response analysis is performed, which provides a link to understanding the damage scenario acrossthe 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 buildingmaterial 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 atthis level of earthquake intensity. The shortest source-to-site distance, poor-quality construction materials, and an irregulartown layout were the main issues identified during the surveys and are thought to have had a significant impact on the extentof the destruction. The data set and vulnerability functions provided will aid in assessing earthquake hazards in this region.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01077-x
TECHNICAL PAPER
Reconnaissance surveys afterJune 2022 Khost earthquake
inAfghanistan: implication towardsseismic vulnerability assessment
forfuture design
AbdullahAnsari1 · AbdulHabibZaray1,2· K.S.Rao1· A.K.Jain1· ParvezAhmadHashmat1,2·
MohammadKaramIkram2,3,4· AbdulWahidWahidi3,5
Received: 15 November 2022 / Accepted: 18 February 2023
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
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 con-
ducted 2days after the event in Gayan, Barmal, and Spera. Damage data were collected during the survey and field investiga-
tion, 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.
Keywords Afghanistan earthquake· Structural damages· Assessment· Chaman fault· Vulnerability function
Introduction
The Khost (Afghanistan) earthquake, with a moment mag-
nitude of Mw 5.9, struck at 1:24 a.m. AFT on 22 June
2022 (21 June 2022 at 20:54 UTC), with the epicenter
(latitude 33.092° N and longitude 69.514°E) 47km south-
west of Khost, at a focal depth of 10km. The trigger of
this earthquake was felt in the Paktika and Khost provinces
of Afghanistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of Pakistan. It
was the deadliest earthquake in 2022 with more than 1500
fatalities and over 3500 injuries in eastern Afghanistan
and western Pakistan. The Spera district in Khost prov-
ince and the Gayan, Barmal, Zirok, and Nika districts in
Paktika province were impacted by the earthquake (Fig.1).
The 2015 Hindu Kush earthquake and the 1998 Takhar
earthquake both caused significant damage and a high
number of fatalities in Afghanistan over the past few dec-
ades [1–7]. Post-disaster reconnaissance surveys aid in the
collection of damage data, which is then useful for any
scientific investigation [8, 9]. For historical earthquakes,
several researchers conducted extensive field investiga-
tions, damage assessment surveys, and building perfor-
mance evaluations [10–20]. The examination of building
structures and any infrastructure projects damaged by
* Abdullah Ansari
aamomin183@gmail.com
1 Department ofCivil Engineering, Indian Institute
ofTechnology Delhi, Hauz Khas, NewDelhi, India
2 Department ofCivil Engineering, Kandahar University,
Kandahar, Afghanistan
3 Department ofCivil Engineering, Asian Institute
ofTechnology, KhlongLuang, PathumThani, Thailand
4 Department ofCivil Engineering, Indian Institute
ofTechnology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India
5 Department ofCivil Engineering, Kabul University, Kabul,
Afghanistan

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
108 Page 2 of 15
earthquakes provide a foundation for future research [21,
22]. A site-specific description of the structural damages,
variations in the geotechnical strata, and any geological
hazards are provided by post-earthquake reconnaissance
surveys [12, 23–25].
Between 26 June and 4 July 2022, reconnaissance surveys
covering 450km stretch were carried out in the districts of
Gayan, Barmal, and Spera. This study imparts an overview
of field observations and collected data related to fatalities,
property damages, structural performance, and geological
attributes. The field investigation aimed to collect structural
specifications of rural houses that had been damaged dur-
ing the June 2022 earthquake. In addition, one-dimensional
seismic response analysis is performed to examine the sur-
face spectral acceleration and the effect of amplification.
The seismic vulnerability of rural houses is also assessed
by defining fragility functions for the various damage grades
highlighted during the survey. The field data and vulner-
ability functions defined in this study will serve as a pri-
mary platform for site characterisation, microzonation, and
earthquake-prone building structure design in Afghanistan
and other developing countries. The proposed damage val-
ues are directly applicable to site-specific structural projects
in earthquake-prone regions.
Seismotectonic background
The Khost earthquake, which occurred in Afghanistan on
22 June 2022, was shallow depth, with a focal depth of
10km in the mountain region. A large portion of Afghani-
stan is located in the broad zone of the Eurasian Plate
[26, 27]. The Arabian Plate subduction to the west and
the oblique subduction of the Indian Plate to the east
both affect seismic activity in Afghanistan [28–32]. The
Himalayan, Karakoram, Pamir, and Hindu Kush ranges are
among the tallest mountain peaks in the world, and they
are all produced as a result of the India plate subducting
beneath the Eurasia plate along the northern edge of the
Indian subcontinent [2, 33]. Oblique motion between the
two plates causes earthquakes that are caused by strike-
slip, reverse-slip, and oblique-slip motion in the west
and south of the Himalayan front [4, 34–38]. The June
22, 2022, earthquake was primarily a strike-slip faulting
event, either left-lateral slip on a northeast-striking fault
or right-lateral slip on a northwest-striking fault, accord-
ing to the pattern of elastic waves that were generated
by the event [3, 39, 40]. The Chaman fault is one of the
most active tectonic sources and has previously produced
Fig. 1 Location of the epicenter of the June 22, 2022, Khost (Afghan-
istan) earthquake. The red star indicates the locations of districts
covered during reconnaissance surveys. Green, yellow, and orange
patches depict the population exposed to seismic intensity levels of V,
VI, and VII on the modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) scale

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
Page 3 of 15 108
significant and deadly earthquakes. The past earthquakes
in Afghanistan with high death rates are listed in Table1.
The GEOSCOPE observatory suggested two ways to fix
faults. The first was a left-lateral fault that was south-
southwest–north-northeast dipping and north-northeast
striking. Another solution is located on a right-lateral fault
that is almost vertical and trends west–northwest–east-
southeast. One hour later, an aftershock of magnitude
Mw 4.5 occurred 6km south of the mainshock location.
Another aftershock with a magnitude of Mw 4.3 was reg-
istered on June 24.
Reconnaissance surveys
The post-earthquake reconnaissance surveys were conducted
from 26 June to 4 July 2022 in the villages of Gayan, Bar-
mal and Spera affected due to the earthquake of 22 June
2022. The survey team conducted detailed interviews with
residents of these two districts to gather the data needed for
the study. The information sheet concentrated on the num-
ber of fatalities, the damage potential, and the state of the
medical and educational facilities. The social and economic
repercussions of this earthquake on the local community
are also briefly covered during the interviews. The local
villagers confirmed that 1750 people died, and more than
3500 people were injured. But the increment in the rate of
death is observed due to a lack of medical facilities and well-
established hospitals. Some small villages were destroyed
after the earthquake, and it is impossible to retrieve them,
so they have turned that place into a graveyard following
religious postulations. As shown in Fig.2, Gayan has the
highest fatality rate compared to other mentioned districts.
Villagers claim that solely in Gayan, there have been
more than 500 fatalities and more than 1500 injuries. The
majority of small communities in Barmal have been turned
into graveyards. Numerous locations in Gayan and Barmal
have experienced significant fluctuations in water levels. The
majority of residential homes in the Barmal District in the
province of Paktika were destroyed. In Barmal, where more
than 500 people suffered major injuries, the fatality rate
is particularly high. The mountain slopes had slipped due
to strong ground motion, and the entire village collapsed,
which is the only explanation for the enormous death toll
in this community. The cracks were observed in the ground
at many locations, and there are fractures in the mountains
as well located approximately 25km away from the Spera.
Table 1 List of historical earthquakes in Afghanistan which caused a
high fatality rate
Mw, moment magnitude, MMI, modified Mercalli intensity scale
Location Date MwMMI Deaths
Khost 22 June 2022 5.9 IX 1750
Badghis 17 January 2022 5.3 VI 159
Hindu Kush 26 October 2015 7.5 VII 653
Hindu Kush 25 March 2002 6.1 VII 1232
Hindu Kush 03 March 2002 7.4 VI 243
Takhar 30 May 1998 6.5 VI 5329
Takhar 20 February 1998 5.9 VI 2754
Hindu Kush 31 January 1991 6.9 VII 965
Baghlan 16 December 1982 6.6 VI 450
Jalalabad 19 February 1842 6.9 VI 500
Hindu Kush 15 May 818 7.8 VIII 850
Fig. 2 Statistical data highlight-
ing the fatality rate in various
districts of Paktika and Khost
provinces

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
108 Page 4 of 15
Table2 lists the fatality statistics for 36 villages in Gayan
and 10 villages in Barmal.
Earthquake‑induced damages
The majority of the affected areas of Paktika and Khost are
rural, with the majority of the houses being constructed of
mud. These village houses collapsed as a result of strong
ground motion, and the fatality rate was significant in Gayan
and Barmal. The Ermikhil village in Gayan showed remark-
able damage. In Ermikhil village of Gayan, up to 800 houses
are destroyed which resulted in a high fatality rate. Most
of the houses in Ermiskhil and Gulshah Khan villages,
either collapsed or showed serious damage (Fig.3a, b). In
the southwestern part of the Marbeka village of Barmal,
closely constructed houses and narrow streets became the
main source of structural failures (Fig.3c).
Shawjal Khil and Shwiki Cheana are the two most dev-
astated villages in the Barmal. The significant damages
observed in these villages are presented in Fig.4. The col-
lapse of a mud home in Shawjal Khil village is depicted in
Fig.4a, where tilting of the walls and significant cracking
are the noticeable hallmarks. The walls of a mud house in
Spera developed significant and small cracks in vertical and
horizontal directions, respectively (Fig.4b). In Fig.4c, the
house with the tilted wall is depicted. This area was flat
prior to the earthquake, but severe motion caused the surface
plane to slide in this area.
Figure5a reflects the use of poor quality materials used
during construction as the main reason behind the uncon-
trolled devastation of houses in Ermikhil village of Gayan.
In a home in Shawjal Khil (Barmal), noticeable inclined
fractures can be seen in Fig.5b. These cracks extend from
the window portion to the bottom of the wall. There were
numerous significant and minor cracks found in a second-
storey column of a home in Shwiki Cheana (Barmal). Under
undriven inertia, these fracture mechanisms are pushing the
column into total collapse (Fig.5c). Figure5d shows the
wall cracking and column failure caused by soft flooring
that used mud as its main binding element. In the Ermikhl
village, a reinforced cement concrete (RCC) column fail-
ure was identified (Fig.5e). The structure could be able to
function properly in the future with just a moderate level of
retrofitting work.
There are no roads, bridges, water, or gas pipes because
the whole Gayan and Barmal fall in rural regions of Paktika
Table 2 Fatality and building
damage data collected during
the field investigations in
different towns of Gayan and
Barmal districts
Villages/towns Killed Injured Damaged
buildings
Villages/towns Killed Injured Damaged
buildings
Gayan district
Mir Adin 4 5 7 Haji Zarf 16 6 5
Khana Deen 33 20 11 Islakh Shah 33 20 6
Zenak 5 18 4 Dedai 15 20 2
Mastoon 0 5 5 Shoew 4 7 7
Jauni 0 5 4 Ezaar 7 30 9
Raji 5 14 5 Gayan 30 70 5
Badi 6 15 16 Waraah 0 0 13
Chapaki 0 10 8 Mazek 0 10 6
Mir Saheb 7 16 21 Mima 0 10 7
Galamir 0 18 3 Kandoori 0 12 5
Lakanri 0 8 11 Godar 0 13 2
Kalandar 0 21 6 Sayeed 0 14 7
Khojali 0 12 4 Kandahari 0 6 7
Hozki 0 16 7 Kalie 2 20 4
Gandah Kondi 8 15 8 Tor Ghoz 2 12 6
Dovekar 8 20 5 Lororaa 3 32 11
Multan 25 80 10 Sapari 6 13 5
Korzi 0 18 9 Moyen 1 20 3
Barmal district
Shwiki Cheana 48 150 21 Gulshah Khan 7 20 41
Darazi 4 5 25 Raghzi 13 30 55
Barim Khil 15 40 11 Jannat Gul 11 20 32
War i 37 100 31 Shawjal Khil 3 16 23
Marbeka 5 4 13 Dorie 3 7 24

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
Page 5 of 15 108
province. Therefore, there is no damage to these objects
visible in any affected locations. Each village had Madra-
sas, but the buildings are no longer functional as a result of
earthquakes (Fig.6). The front view of a Madrasa build-
ing in Gayan that can be judged to be earthquake-resistant
is shown in Fig.6a. This is because the RCC design used
Fig. 3 a Intermediate damaged floors of houses constructed with
stone and mud in Ermikhil village (Lat: 32.9942° Long: 69.3487°);
b collapsed roof of a mud house in Gulshah Khan village (Lat:
32.9412° Long: 69.3044°); c extensive devastation of houses in a
small community in Marbeka village (Lat: 32.7387° Long: 69.3062°)
Fig. 4 a Failure of the roof and heavily damaged walls for a house
located in Shawjal Khil village (Lat: 32.7605° Long: 69.1976°);
b major and minor cracks on the walls of a mud house in Spera
(Lat: 33.1594° Long: 69.581°); c major cracks and tilting of the
wall towards the northwestern side. This house is located in Shwiki
Cheana village (Lat: 32.9017° Long: 69.1743°)

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
108 Page 6 of 15
high-quality building materials and steel reinforcement.
Cross and diagonal cracks can be noticed on the second floor
of this RCC structure. The water tank which is fixed at the
roof level of this Madrasa tipped, revealing mild damage to
the junction between the beam and column. This is a unique
illustration of structural damage (Fig.6c). The damaged
walls of the unreinforced stone masonry (USM) structure of
a Madrasa in the Islakh Shah village are seen in Fig.6b. The
interior of this structure is depicted in Fig.6d, e. Figure6d
displays the structural damage seen at wall junctions. This
building displayed significant inside damage in comparison
to its exterior, as evidenced by extensive cracking of the
main prayer hall (Fig.6e).
Figure7a depicts the damaged Comprehensive Health
Center (CHC) in the Gayan neighbourhood. The major nota-
ble damage pattern observed consists of punching damage at
the roof (Fig.7a), diagonal fractures in general ward walls
(Fig.7b), and vertical cracks in a column (Fig.7c). Figure8d
shows the damaged reinforced concrete building (RCC)
buildings of a Madrasa in the Ermikhil village. Each ele-
ment, such as slabs, columns, and beams, is affected by the
earthquake. The collapse of brick walls, wooden windows,
doors, and other furniture can be seen in Fig.7d. Table3
gives the details about damages to surveyed houses caused
by earthquake hazards.
Social andeconomic influences
Any natural calamity has a negative effect on the overall
growth of a nation. Afghanistan is one of the undeveloped
countries in the Asian continent, currently engaged in con-
flict, political agendas, and internal irregularities. Addition-
ally, if an earthquake strikes, it wrecks the economy as a
whole [41]. This country has faced deadly earthquakes in
recent years, including the Hindukush earthquake in 2015.
Recently occurred June 22, 2022, earthquake in Spera dis-
turbed the two provinces, Paktika and Khost. The recon-
naissance surveys focused mostly on how this earthquake
will affect education, healthcare, housing, and employment.
Table4 describes how numerous villages and towns in the
Gayan and Barmal areas were impacted by this earthquake.
Education system
The Mabreka in Barmal is one of the highly affected vil-
lages where more than 85% of residential houses and more
than 90% of Madrasa were damaged. Shwiki Cheana,
Barim Khil, and Gulshah Khan are the villages where most
of the Madrasa structures were either severely damaged or
collapsed. Badi, Mastoon, Kandoori, Kalie, and Gayan are
Fig. 5 a Overview of damages to houses in the western part of
Ermikhil village (Lat: 32.9944° Long: 69.3482°); b visible inclined
cracks on walls; c structural damages due to soft flooring observed
in Shwiki Cheana (Lat: 32.9017° Long: 69.1743°); d roof level
flexural cracking observed in Ermikhl village (Lat: 32.9944° Long:
69.3482°); e failure of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) column

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
Page 7 of 15 108
also some examples from Gayan district where more than
80% of Madrasa buildings were damaged.
Healthcare system
For Afghans, access to medical infrastructure is already a
challenge. People used to travel to hospitals in neighbour-
ing nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, and China.
More than 85% of medical facilities, including hospitals,
small clinics, and medical centers are either destroyed by
the earthquake or partially operational. The injured people
relocating to Kabul and Ghazni, to receive better care.
Due to political unrest, international travel is not possi-
ble from Afghanistan, so these people have to rely only
on local medical facilities. A few villages in Gayan and
Barmal, including Darazi, Hji Zarf, and Chapaki, have
medical infrastructure that is as lacking as none at all. The
medical facilities in this area were severely impacted by
the earthquake, and it will take a very long time to provide
new buildings in such a rural part of Afghanistan. Fol-
lowing consultation with the Gayan and Barmal doctors,
treatment information for 2500 patients was gathered, as
depicted in Fig.8.
Site characterisation andresponse analysis
Seismic waves transmitted through a soil layer may be
amplified or deamplified in comparison to bedrock motion
at any site of interest. This effect can be studied by con-
sidering local site effects in order to better understand the
seismic response of soil deposits. Local site effect and exten-
sive site characterisation are required in areas with diverse
shallow geology and extensive topographic fluctuations.
In this study, DEEPSOIL[42] was used to perform one-
dimensional seismic response analysis for the equivalent
linear case at all locations where damages were observed
within the study area. This analysis was performed under
the assumption that the site is stacked horizontally for all
frequency components [43]. The soil parameters of each
soil layer are represented by the damping versus shear strain
curves and modulus reduction curves. Seed and Sun [44] and
Seed and Idriss [45]used shear modulus reduction curves
(G/Gmax) based on shear strain to define the characteristics
of clays and sands.
Figure9 compares spectral acceleration, Fourier ampli-
tude ratio, and amplification factor for Spera, Gayan, and
Barmal. The average spectral acceleration for sites in Spera
at 0.22s is 1.4g, which is the highest among all damaged
Fig. 6 a Damaged reinforced cement concrete (RCC) building of
a Madrasa (Lat: 32.9843° Long: 69.3961°) showing the cross and
diagonal cracks at the second floor; b damaged unreinforced stone
masonry (USM) building of a Madrasa in the Islakh Shah village
(Lat: 32.9813° Long: 69.3953°); c defected water tank in Gayan; d
structural defects at wall intersections; e heavy damages in the prayer
hall

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
108 Page 8 of 15
locations. Gayan has the lowest FAR of 2.31 at 4.6Hz. The
amplification factor for rock sites in Barmal is greater than
the amplification factor for alluvium sites in Spera. Accord-
ing to the FAR plot (Fig.9b), alluvium sites have a higher
peak at lower frequencies, whereas rocky sites have a higher
peak at higher frequencies. Local site effect and extensive
site characterisation are necessary for places where shal-
low geology is diverse and strong topographic fluctuations
prevail [46–48]. Elastic half space technique is quick and
efficient [49, 50] employed to define the subsutface condi-
tion for this study. The amplification is greater in places with
higher shear wave velocity for a shorter period of time. The
amplification is maximum in places with low shear wave
velocity over long periods of time. The graphical values for
black dotted line serve as a preliminary database for assess-
ing the dynamic properties of foundation soil in Paktika
Fig. 7 Damaged building of government hospital in Gayan (Lat: 32.9795° Long: 69.3957°) proclaiming. a slab level punching damage; b wall
cracks in general ward; c column cracks in dressing ward; d damaged Madrasa building in Ermikhil village (Lat: 32.9945° Long: 69.3483°)
Fig. 8 Various medical treat-
ments provided to the injured
people

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
Page 9 of 15 108
Province. In general, the general trend plot can be used in
the early stages of analysing soil deposits for localised con-
struction projects.
Seismic vulnerability function
Seismic vulnerability functions are useful tools because
they allow for the assessment of seismic risk in building
structures both before and after an earthquake, establishing
the conditional probability of a structure reaching or
exceeding a specified damage state (
DSi
) for the intensity
measure (IM) of earthquake motion [5]. If the structural
capacity and seismic demand are two variables with a nor-
mal or lognormal distribution, the efficiency of the result-
ant complex is distributed in the form of lognormal. The
vulnerability functions are represented by fragility curves
with a lognormal distribution, as shown in Eq.(1), assum-
ing that all database uncertainty can be stated simply by
median uncertainty.
Table 3 Outcomes of rapid
damage assessment
All numeric values are given in percentage
Construction type Earthquake induced damages Other ground hazard induced damages
Damage grade Damage grade
DS1
DS2
DS3
DS4
DS5
DS1
DS2
DS3
DS4
DS5
USM 12 4 6 25 13 4 14 11 5 6
URM 11 8 19 31 6 2 13 5 2 3
RCC 25 17 22 17 4 0 1 9 3 2
Table 4 Summary showing
the percentage devastation of
various community sector in
Gayan and Barmal
NA, data not available
Villages/towns Housing Educa-
tional
system
Health-
care
system
Villages/towns Housing Educa-
tional
system
Health-
care
system
Gayan district
Mir Adin 39.50 45.25 57.00 Haji Zarf 69.75 34.75 54.25
Khana Deen 76.25 56.00 75.25 Islakh Shah 74.50 56.50 NA
Zenak 55.25 36.25 79.00 Dedai 54.25 54.00 76.25
Mastoon 78.50 65.00 NA Shoew 76.00 46.75 78.25
Jauni 89.50 45.50 32.00 Ezaar 43.25 NA 76.25
Raji 73.50 76.25 NA Gayan 32.25 25.00 54.00
Badi 72.50 88.00 35.50 Waraah 78.00 78.50 65.75
Chapaki 56.25 75.25 NA Mazek 73.00 NA NA
Mir Saheb 54.00 47.50 49.00 Mima 32.50 43.75 54.25
Galamir 45.25 NA 56.75 Kandoori 75.00 98.25 51.25
Lakanri 78.00 78.25 NA Godar 31.25 56.50 87.00
Kalandar 54.50 58.25 78.50 Sayeed 34.00 NA NA
Khojali 32.25 NA NA Kandahari 26.25 79.75 NA
Hozki 26.00 65.75 75.50 Kalie 29.75 89.00 NA
Gandah Kondi 35.00 58.00 79.00 Tor Ghoz 51.50 NA NA
Dovekar 80.25 58.25 NA Lororaa 50.00 54.00 95.00
Multan 43.25 59.50 43.00 Sapari 65.25 75.75 NA
Korzi 76.23 63.00 32.25 Moyen 39.25 NA 95.00
Barmal district
Shwiki Cheana 94.50 65.25 75.00 Gulshah Khan 73.75 24.75 45.50
Darazi 95.50 NA NA Raghzi 54.50 35.25 NA
Barim Khil 56.75 38.00 59.25 Jannat Gul 65.00 NA 32.00
War i 78.25 35.25 NA Shawjal Khil 43.50 NA 79.00
Marbeka 87.50 65.50 NA Dorie 41.75 NA 84.25

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
108 Page 10 of 15
where
DS
is the type of damage grades,
∅
is the stand-
ard normal cumulative distribution function,
IM
DS
i
is the
median threshold value of the seismic intensity measure
(
IM
) responsible to form a specific type of damage (
DSi
)
and product of
𝛽total
and
DSi
give the total lognormal stand-
ard deviation describing the total variability associated with
each damage state.
IMDSi
and
𝛽total , DSi
are the two major
parts of vulnerability function. For the determination of
total lognormal standard deviations, the capacity of tunnel
support (
𝛽C
), seismic demand (
𝛽D
), and the estimation of
damage state thresholds (
𝛽DS
) are regarded as the primary
sources of uncertainty.
In this study, rapid damage assessment was performed
during field investigation. It revealed the five grades of hous-
ing damages, as suggested by EMS-98. These grades are
DS0
(no damage),
DS1
(slight damage),
DS2
(moderate damage),
DS3
(heavy damage),
DS4
(very heavy damage), and
DS5
(collapse). The building data collected during survey are
(1)
P[
DS ≥DSi
|
IM
]
=�
(
ln IM −ln IM
DSi
∕𝛽
total
, DSi
)
given in Table5. The percentage of damages belonging to
each grade for Gayan and Barmal districts are illustrated in
Fig.10.
The site response and structural integrity are the two main
parameters considered to define the damage index. The dam-
age indices are designed based on the intensity of the bed-
rock PGA and which further suggests the damage states. The
overall methodology adopted in the present study is illus-
trated in Fig.11. The damage indices for all types of damage
grades were used to define the vulnerability function for all
damage grades.
𝛽total
is estimated using Eq.(2) considering
the cumulative effect of
𝛽C
,
𝛽D
, and,
𝛽DS
. Table 6 provides
the input values of
𝛽total
for the damage graded considered
in this study,
During the field survey in Spera, Gayan, and Barmal,
houses constructed with unreinforced stone masonry (USM)
(2)
𝛽
total =
√
𝛽2
C+𝛽2
D+𝛽2
DS
Fig. 9 Site response analysis for damaged locations

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
Page 11 of 15 108
and unreinforced masonry (URM) were mostly observed.
RCC-based engineering structures have been reported in
newly developed areas. The vulnerability functions devel-
oped for these types of rural houses are presented in Fig.12.
As PGA increases to 0.5g, the chances of severe damage
increase slightly but remain extremely low for the URM.
The damage probabilities increase to 17.5%, 45.5%, and
11%, respectively, for slight, moderate, and heavy damage,
indicating that the examined houses retain their basic per-
formance but may sustain some moderate damage at this
level of earthquake intensity. When the fragility curves gen-
erated for houses with varying source to site distances are
compared, it is clear that Spera has a much higher vulner-
ability than Barmal for the same PGA with different building
heights. Furthermore, increasing PGA to 0.8g increases the
exceedance probabilities for heavy and very heavy damage
exposed to URM-based houses to 73% and 62%, respec-
tively. For slight damages, where minor cracking on walls
very common for USM subjected to input bedrock motion
(PGA = 0.6g), there is a considerable decline in the dam-
age probability from
P[
DS ≥DS
1|
PGA =0.5g
]
=
0.73
to
P[
DS ≥DS
2|
PGA =0.5g
]
=
0.12
, respectively. The
empirical fragility curves established by the American Life-
line Alliance (ALA 2001) [51] and the National Institute
of Building Sciences [52] are compared to the analytical
fragility functions examined in this study. The vulnerability
functions for all five damage grades are found sandwiched
between the functions defined for minor and serious damage
by the American Lifeline Alliance [51]. For URM, the heavy
damage correspond to the moderate damage curve proposed
by HAZUS [52].
Table7 shows the range of values in terms of ratio of
probability of moderate and heavy damage under different
site performances for various structural specifications, tak-
ing into account the relevance of construction age. To make
things easier, rural houses are divided into two major groups
based on the 2015 Hindukush earthquake. Construction
before 2015 and construction after 2015 are the two groups.
According to the analysis, all newly constructed houses built
in the last 10years have significant seismic capacity. The
governing factors behind this resistance are the application
of the concept of engineered houses based on fundamental
construction theory. The field observations and post-seismic
functionality for each damage grade are enlisted in Table8.
Table 5 Detailing of surveyed
houses during field investigation
All values are given in percentage of rural houses covered during reconnaissance survey
L, low height building, MH, medium height building, USM, unreinforced stone masonry, URM, unrein-
forced masonry
Town Construction age Building
height
Construction material
After 2015 1965–2015 1915–1965 Before 1915 L MH USM URM RCC
Spera 33 51 12 4 45 55 31 54 15
Gayan 19 23 43 15 38 62 32 46 22
Barmal 12 29 48 11 24 76 19 58 23
Fig. 10 Outcomes of damage assessment during the reconnaissance surveys. a Gayan; b Barmal

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
108 Page 12 of 15
Conclusions
Every natural disaster has a lesson to teach us, and we
can learn from our mistakes in order to avoid repeating
them. Such natural disasters indirectly point to social
wrongdoings such as illegitimate planning, the construc-
tion of non-engineered structures, poor design strategies,
and so on[53]. The Khost earthquake in Afghanistan on
22 June 2022, resulted in a high death toll and extensive
building damage. This paper highlights the field observa-
tions and data collected during reconnaissance surveys in
the districts of Gayan, Barmal, and Spera between June
26 and July 4, 2022. The information gathered during
the survey and presented in this study will be useful for
future planning of earthquake-resistant building designs,
urban planning, and earthquake damage assessments in
Afghanistan. The Gayan district received the most heavy
damage, resulting in the collapse of more than 90% of
the houses. As a result of cracks appearing in the walls,
columns collapsing, and terrain sliding, public buildings
such as mosques, schools, and hospitals are currently
either completely damaged or inoperable. Poor quality
construction materials, inadequate column reinforcement,
an irregular town layout, hilly terrain, and narrow streets
were the main issues discovered during the surveys and
are believed to have had a significant impact on the extent
of the devastation.
Fig. 11 Flowchart showing the
proposed methodology
Table 6 Inputs considered to generate vulnerability functions for
rural houses
USM, unreinforced stone masonry, URM, unreinforced masonry
Damage grade Near source Far source
Median
(
PGA
DS
i
)
in g
Ln Std
(
𝛽total, DSi
)
Median
(
PGA
DS
i
)
in g
Ln Std
(
𝛽total, DSi
)
USM
DS0
0.38 0.28 0.32 0.31
DS1
0.41 0.38 0.45 0.42
DS2
0.45 0.37 0.52 0.38
DS3
0.52 0.32 0.54 0.52
DS4
0.54 0.45 0.57 0.54
DS5
0.67 0.46 0.71 0.71
URM
DS0
0.43 0.42 0.49 0.42
DS1
0.51 0.31 0.54 0.52
DS2
0.54 0.53 0.69 0.45
DS3
0.57 0.41 0.71 0.63
DS4
0.64 0.49 0.83 0.38
DS5
0.75 0.53 0.85 0.56

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
Page 13 of 15 108
Fig. 12 Seismic vulnerability functions for rural houses constructed based on. a Unreinforced stone masonry (USM); b unreinforced masonry
(URM)
Table 7 Damage analysis
for rural houses for different
structural integrity under
varying seismic environment
Structural specification Sa (g) Ratio of probability of moderate damage to heavy damage
Source to site distance (km) < 10 10–50 > 50
Construction type USM URM USM URM USM URM
L-2015 < 0.55 4.67 1.43 3.73 1.14 3.27 1.00
0.55–0.85 0.94 2.24 0.75 1.79 0.66 1.57
> 0.85 1.01 1.07 0.81 0.85 0.71 0.75
MH-2015 < 0.55 3.54 2.64 3.11 2.89 2.95 2.17
0.55–0.85 1.42 2.43 2.93 3.45 4.65 3.35
> 0.85 1.76 5.23 1.64 3.75 5.23 4.54
L-2015 + < 0.55 4.13 5.36 5.76 6.32 5.32 6.22
0.55–0.85 5.33 4.98 5.31 4.25 5.24 4.52
> 0.85 4.51 5.87 5.24 5.43 3.56 2.75
MH-2015 + < 0.55 6.76 5.87 5.64 3.21 5.76 5.33
0.55–0.85 3.23 5.35 5.36 4.66 6.78 4.24
> 0.85 4.56 5.32 4.87 3.44 5.65 5.32
Table 8 Type of building damages observed in Gayan and Barmal and their functionality in post-seismic scenarios
Damage grade Damage class Field observations Post-seismic functionality
D0No damage No visible cracks Yes
D1Slight damage Minor cracks on walls
D2Moderate damage Cross cracks on the wall face
Diagonal cracks on column-wall joints
Can be functional with moderate repairing works
D3Heavy damage Horizontal bending cracks up to 15mm at
the tank roof
Major cracks on walls and joints
Can be functional with serious repairing works.
It may cost high
D4Very heavy damage Localised crushing of columns
Cracks longer than 40mm
No
D5Collapse Collapse of wall
Failure of beam-column joints
Sliding of buildings due to additional
impact of slope instability

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
108 Page 14 of 15
Site response analysis revealed that the majority of Spera
sites can withstand spectral accelerations greater than 1.2g.
Furthermore, the rapid damage assessment data gathered
during reconnaissance surveys was used to define the vul-
nerability functions for rural houses built with unreinforced
stone masonry (USM) and unreinforced masonry (URM).
According to the proposed fragility curves, the probability
of very heavy damage and collapse for USM houses is very
high in all cases, regardless of epicentral distance. For URM
houses, the probability of heavy damage is significant if the
PGA exceeds 0.24g. The majority of damaged houses in
Barmal had horizontal bending cracks and localised column
crushing, which fall under this damage grade. The results
will be affected by changes in the local geology, tectonic
configuration, and specific design guidelines. In the event
of earthquake-induced landslides, these vulnerability func-
tions require special attention. The data and vulnerability
functions presented in this study will be a ready-to-use tool
for increasing seismic and blast resilience for these types of
structures in Afghanistan. This study can be used for prior
impact assessment and cost–benefit analysis in the context
of project enhancement.
Acknowledgments The authors are thankful to the medical staff of
Government Hospitals in Gayan and Baramal for providing fatality
data.
Authors’ contribution All authors contributed to the conception, visu-
alisation, methodology, and design aspects of this study. Data pro-
cessing, 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.
Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support
were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Data availability All data sets generated and/or analysed during the
current study are provided in the manuscript.
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.
References
1. Alvan HV, Mansor S, Omar H, Azad FH (2014) Precursory sig-
nals 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
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
3. Ansari A, Rao KS, Jain AK (2022) Seismic vulnerability of
tunnels in Jammu and Kashmir during post-seismic function-
ality. Geotech Geol Eng 40(11):1–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10706- 022- 02341-0
4. Ansari A, Rao KS, Jain AK, Ansari A (2022) Deep learning model
for predicting tunnel damages and track serviceability under seis-
mic environment. Model Earth Syst Environ 8(4):1–20. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40808- 022- 01556-7
5. Ansari A, Zahoor F, Rao KS, Jain AK (2022) Liquefaction haz-
ard 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
6. Ansari A, Rao KS, Jain AK (2022) Seismic analysis of shallow
tunnels in soil medium. Stability of slopes and underground exca-
vations. Springer, Singapore, pp 343–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
978- 981- 16- 5601-9_ 29
7. Khalil U, Aslam B, Maqsoom A (2021) Afghanistan earth-
quake 2015 aftershocks analysis for a better understanding of
the seismicity behavior for future assessment. Acta Geophys
69(4):1189–1197
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
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 situa-
tion 17 years later. Int J Archit Herit 16(5):717–745
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
12. Contreras D, Wilkinson S, James P (2021) Earthquake reconnais-
sance data sources, a literature review. Earth 2(4):1006–1037
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
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–Basili-
cata earthquake. Geosciences 10(6):229
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
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
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
19. Shakya M, Kawan CK, Gaire AK, Duwal S (2021) Post-earth-
quake damage assessment of traditional masonry buildings: a case
study of Bhaktapur municipality following 2015 Gorkha (Nepal)
earthquake. Eng Fail Anal 123:105277
20. Sharma K, Deng L, Khadka D (2019) Reconnaissance of liq-
uefaction case studies in 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake and

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2023) 8:108
1 3
Page 15 of 15 108
assessment of liquefaction susceptibility. Int J Geotech Eng
13(4):326–338
21. Assimaki D, Kausel E, Gazetas G (2005) Soil-dependent topo-
graphic effects: a case study from the 1999 Athens earthquake.
Earthq Spectra 21(4):929–966
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
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
24. Tena-Colunga A (2021) Conditions of structural irregularity rela-
tionships with observed earthquake damage in Mexico City in
2017. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 143:106630
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
26. Kumar S, Vig R, Kapur P (2018) Development of earthquake
event detection technique based on STA/LTA algorithm for seis-
mic alert system. J Geol Soc India 92(6):679–686
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
28. Farah A, Abbas G, De Jong KA, Lawrence RD (1984) Evolution
of the lithosphere in Pakistan. Tectonophysics 105(1–4):207–227
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
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
31. Mokhtari M, Abdollahie Fard I, Hessami K (2008) Structural
elements of the Makran region, Oman sea and their potential rel-
evance to tsunamigenisis. Nat Hazards 47(2):185–199
32. Shakib H, Dardaei S, Farhangian H, Torkanbouri NE (2021) Seis-
mological 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 educa-
tion systems in South Asia. Springer, Singapore, pp 1–33
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
35. Khan MY, Shah MA, Khanam F (2021) Earthquake stochastic
modeling and estimating the probabilities of earthquake occur-
rences in Hindu Kush region. Arab J Geosci 14(3):1–15
36. Rao VD, Choudhury D (2018) Prediction of earthquake occur-
rence for a new nuclear power plant in India using probabilistic
models. Innov Infrastruct Solut 3(1):1–8
37. Rashid M, Dhakal RP, Sullivan T, Yeow T (2022) Seismic perfor-
mance characterization of fire sprinkler piping systems through
shake table testing. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 55(3):167–182
38. Shahbazi P, Mansouri B (2021) Grid source event-based seis-
mic hazard assessment of Iran. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng
45(2):1109–1119
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
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
41. Brookshire DS, Chang SE, Cochrane H, Olson RA, Rose A, Steen-
son J (1997) Direct and indirect economic losses from earthquake
damage. Earthq Spectra 13(4):683–701
42. Hashash YMA, Groholski DR, Philips CA, Park D (2008) DEEP-
SOIL 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
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 devel-
oped artificial neural network model. Adv Sci Technol Res J
10(30):76–83
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
48. Shahri AA, Esfandiyari B, Rajablou R (2012) A proposed geo-
technical-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
49. Phillips C, Hashash YM (2009) Damping formulation for
nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
29(7):1143–1158
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
51. American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) (2001) Seismic fragility for-
mulations for water systems, part 1—guideline. ASCE-FEMA,
Reston
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
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.