Reliability comparison of instrumental seismic intensity algorithms in 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and 2013 Lushan earthquake
-
摘要: 破坏性地震发生后， 特别是在通信中断的情况下， 利用仪器烈度快速估计地震动强度(烈度)的分布情况， 可为开展最有效的地震应急救援提供决策依据. 该文介绍了现有的几种仪器烈度算法， 并利用汶川地震与芦山地震中获得的强震加速度记录对各种算法的可靠性进行了比较. 结果表明， 在这两次地震中只利用地震动峰值参数确定仪器烈度的算法可靠性较低， 而考虑反应谱特性的算法可靠性更高. 在未得到更多强震数据的检验前， 建议采用袁一凡提出的仪器烈度算法， 或利用谱烈度值确定仪器烈度的算法， 或利用加速度反应谱值确定仪器烈度的算法.Abstract: Rapid and reliable estimation of strong ground motion (or seismic intensity) distribution based on instrumental seismic intensity can give security to earthquake emergency response soon after a destructive earthquake, especially on the situation of communication interruption. The reliabilities of eight instrumental seismic intensity algorithms are discussed using the acceleration records obtained in Wenchuan earthquake and Lushan earthquake. The results indicate that the instrumental seismic intensity evaluated by peak parameters of ground motion, such as PGA or PGV, are of lower reliabilities than the instrumental seismic intensity derived from response spectra. We suggest that the instrumental seismic intensity evaluated by Professor Yuan's algorithm, by Housner's spectrum intensity, or by response spectra, could be accepted in China until more data are available to propose a more reliable algorithm.
-
-
![]()
图 1 汶川地震加速度记录的台站分布与烈度分布图
Figure 1. Station positions of acceleration records and seismic intensity distribution for the Wenchuan earthquake used in this study
![]()
图 2 芦山地震加速度记录的台站 分布与烈度分布图
Figure 2. Station positions of acceleration records and seismic intensity distribution for the Lushan earthquake used in this study
![]()
图 4 不同算法得到的汶川地震仪器烈度分布图
Figure 4. Instrumental intensity distribution of Wenchuan earthquake using different aigorithms
表 1 中国地震烈度表建议的地震动参数值
Table 1 Strong ground motion measures suggested in the Chinese seismic intensity scale
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 利用谱烈度确定仪器烈度所用的地震动参数值
Table 3 Strong ground motion measures in instrument intensity determination by spectrum intensity
下载: 导出CSV
附A 不同算法得到的仪器烈度
附A Instrumental seismic intensity cailulated from acceleration records using different algorithms
下载: 导出CSV
-
福建省质量技术监督局. 2012. 地震仪器烈度表(DB35/T 1308-2012) [S]. 福州: 福建省质量技术监督局: 1-5. 李敏. 2010. 地震动加速度反应谱与地震烈度的关系研究[D].哈尔滨: 中国地震局工程力学研究所: 44-52. 王玉石, 周正华, 兰日清. 2010. 利用修正谱烈度确定我国西部地区仪器烈度的建议方法[J]. 应用基础与工程科学学报, 18(S1): 119-129. 王玉石, 周正华, 王伟. 2008. 基于假设检验的地震动强度(烈度)速报方法[J]. 地震工程与工程振动, 28(5): 49-54. 袁一凡. 1998. 由地震动三要素确定地震动强度(烈度)的研究[R]. 哈尔滨: 国家地震局工程力学研究所: 1-42. 袁一凡. 2008. 四川汶川8.0级地震损失评估[J]. 地震工程与工程振动, 28(5): 10-19. 中国地震局. 2013. 中国地震局发布四川省芦山"4·20"7.0级强烈地震烈度图[EB/OL]. [2013-04-25]. http://www.cea.gov.cn/publish/dizhenj/465/539/20130426185746117952058/index.html. 中国地震局震害防御司. 2008. 汶川8.0级地震未校正加速度记录[M]. 北京: 地震出版社: 1-5. 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 2008. 中国地震烈度表(GB17742-2008) [S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社: 1-4. Atkinson G M, Kaka S I. 2007. Relationships between felt intensity and instrumental ground motion in the Central United States and California[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 97(2): 497-510.
Boatwright J, Thywissen K, Seekins L C. 2001. Correlation of ground motion and intensity for the 17 January 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 91(4): 739-752.
Chernov Y K, Sokolov V Y. 1999. Correlation of seismic intensity with Fourier acceleration spectra[J]. Phys Chem Earth: Pt A, 24(6): 523-528.
Fahjan Y M, Alcik H, Sari A. 2011. Applications of cumulative absolute velocity to urban earthquake early warning systems[J]. J Seismol, 15(2): 355-373.
Housner G W. 1952. Spectrum intensity of strong-motion earthquakes[C]//Proceedings of the Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures. Oakland: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: 20-36.
Kaka S I, Atkinson G M. 2004. Relationships between instrumental ground-motion parameters and modified Mercalli intensity in Eastern North America[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 94(5): 1728-1736.
Karim K R, Yamazaki F. 2001. Estimation of the JMA seismic intensity from liquefied record and its correlation with strong motion parameters[C]//Proceedings of the 26th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium. Sapporo: Japan Society of Civil Engineers: 253-256.
Karim K R, Yamazaki F. 2002. Correlation of JMA instrumental seismic intensity with strong motion parameters[J]. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn, 31(5): 1191-1212.
Linkimer L. 2008. Relationship between peak ground acceleration and modified Mercalli intensity in Costa Rica[J]. Revista Geológica de Amérrca Central, 38(1): 81-94.
Margottini C, Molin D, Serva L. 1992. Intensity versus ground motion: a new approach using Italian data[J]. Eng Geol, 33(1): 45-58.
Shabestari K T, Yamazaki F. 2001. A proposal of instrumental seismic intensity scale compatible with MMI evaluated from three-component acceleration records[J]. Earthq Spectra, 17(4): 711-723.
Sokolov V Y. 2002. Seismic intensity and Fourier acceleration spectra: revised relationship[J]. Earthq Spectra, 18(1): 161-187.
Sokolov V Y, Chernov Y K. 1998. On the correlation of seismic intensity with Fourier amplitude spectra[J]. Earthq Spectra, 14(4): 679-694.
Trifunac M D, Brady A G. 1975. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 65(3): 581-626.
Trifunac M D, Westermo B. 1977. A note on the correlation of frequency-dependent duration of strong earthquake ground motion with the modified Mercalli intensity and the geologic conditions at the recording stations[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 67(3): 917-927.
Wald D J, Quitoriano V, Heaton T H, Kanamori H. 1999. Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and modified Mercalli intensity in California[J]. Earthq Spectra, 15(3): 557-564.
Wang Y, Li X, Zhou Z. 2013. A new instrumental measure of epicentral shaking intensity in Western China[J]. Bull Earthquake Eng, 11(4): 913-924.
Wells D L, Coppersmith K J. 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 84(4): 974-1002.
Wu Y M, Teng T L, Shin T C, Hsiao N C. 2003. Relationship between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and intensity in Taiwan[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 93(1): 386-396.
-
期刊类型引用(9)
1. 唐淋，祁国亮，张椤訢. 地震烈度速报台网观测资料质量研究——以成都市地震烈度速报台网为例. 防灾减灾学报. 2020(02): 23-32 . 
百度学术
2. 帅向华，冯蔚，董翔，刘钦，甄盟，李继赓. 震后分时段地震烈度影响场快速判识方法研究. 武汉大学学报(信息科学版). 2020(08): 1195-1204 . 百度学术
3. 冯锐. 趣味地震学（12）：震后速判1+3. 国际地震动态. 2019(12): 54-63 . 百度学术
4. 张仁鹏，冯靖乔，雷焕珍，马飞，王佳蕾. 2017年松原宁江M4.9地震烈度评定及震害分析. 防灾科技学院学报. 2018(03): 23-30 . 百度学术
5. 张立宝，王玉石，李小军，兰日清. Housner谱烈度的一种快速近似算法. 震灾防御技术. 2018(04): 775-783 . 百度学术
6. 周宝峰，于海英，温瑞智，谢礼立. 强震动记录数据质量初探. 地震地磁观测与研究. 2017(01): 69-75 . 百度学术
7. 于海英，周宝峰，王家行，马新生，张同宇，徐旋，胡振荣. 强震动观测仪器面临的机遇和挑战. 震灾防御技术. 2017(01): 68-77 . 百度学术
8. 朱永莉，黎大虎，龙承厚，孙泽涛. 不同仪器烈度算法在四川地区历次地震中的比较应用. 地震学报. 2015(02): 335-346+370 . 本站查看
9. 江鹏，朱永莉，余桦. 从爆破烈度看仪器烈度的算法. 四川地震. 2014(03): 11-16 . 百度学术
其他类型引用(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 805
- HTML全文浏览量: 345
- PDF下载量: 14
- 被引次数: 13
