地震危险性分析中不确定性的概率分析及其估计

地震危险性分析中不确定性的概率分析及其估计陈汉尧在地震危险性分析中，从潜在震源区的划分、潜在震源区参数的估计到衰减关系的选择等，每一步都存在着很大的不确定性。因而，合理的地震危险性分析方法应是概率性的。常用的概率性地震危险性分析只考虑了实际存在的一部...     

余震时空丛集对概率地震危险性分析的影响

本文以东北、华北及川滇地区为例,系统研究了余震时空丛集对概率地震危险性分析的影响.采用基于传染型余震序列模型(ETAS)的蒙特卡罗模拟方法,模拟了包含余震和不包含余震的两套地震序列,然后以模拟地震目录为基础输入,采用基于空间光滑地震活动性模型的地震危险性分析方法计算了两套地震危险性结果——PGA(Peak Ground Acceleration,峰值加速度),通过分析比较这两套PGA的绝对差值和相对差值来研究余震时空丛集对概率地震危险性分析的影响.研究结果表明余震对50年超越概率10%地震危险性计算结果的影响均值为6%左右,最大可达10%,并且随着超越概率水平的提高,余震影响也越大.弱地震活动区余震对概率地震危险性分析的影响要高于强地震活动区.研究结果还进一步揭示两套PGA结果绝对差值的最大值约为15 cm·s~(-2),且出现在高PGA区,这意味着余震对概率地震危险性计算结果不会产生显著影响.因此在地震区划或一般性地震危险性分析中可考虑不用删除余震.     

核电厂地震安全性评价衰减关系影响分析

地震危险性分析中的不确定性处理和表征,一直是核电厂厂址地震安全性评价中倍受关注的重要问题,尤其是日本福岛核事故后,无论是确定核电厂厂址的设计基准地震动,还是进行核电厂地震风险评价,都更加重视地震危险性分析中的不确定性.本文通过理论分析重点说明了衰减关系的不确定性,包括标准差和截断水平对核电厂地震安全性评价的影响,并在此基础上,通过算例和讨论说明了概率性方法截断水平的选取问题,探讨了现行确定性方法和概率性方法在截断水平选取上的差异.分析计算结果表明,在地震活动较弱的区域,概率性方法截断水平为3,确定性方法截断水平为0的现行做法是恰当的.但是,对于发震构造大震复发间隔较小的区域,为了使二者在超越概率方面协调,恰当提高确定性方法的截断水平更为合理.     

山东某场地概率地震危险性分析

利用概率地震危险性分析(CPSHA)方法,对山东某场地进行地震危险性分析,通过对该场地划分潜在震源区,确定地震活动性参数及地震动衰减关系,计算分析地震危险性概率,基本确定对该场地地震动峰值加速度起主要贡献的几个潜在震源区及贡献值,并确定该场地50年超越概率10%的水平向基岩地震动加速度峰值。结果发现,CPSHA方法以具体的构造尺度和更加细致的构造标志来划分潜在震源区,使潜在震源区规模缩减,从而更能反映地震活动在空间分布上的不均匀性。     

华北北部地区2005年前地震危险性预测研究进展

综述了利用确定性和概率性相结合的预测方法，对华北北部地区２００５年前的地震危险性进行了概率预测研究。研究表明，该区在２００年前发生６级以上地震的概率为０．４５，其中涿鹿－怀来一带地区内每个计算单元中的发展概率最高，达到０．０２。     

蒙古国地区背景地震危险性分析

根据蒙古国及其周边地区的背景地震目录（M≤6.0）,采用空间光滑地震活动性的方法研究了蒙古国地区背景地震危险性水平,给出了蒙古国50年超越概率10 %的峰值加速度分布图。结果表明蒙古国大部分地区背景地震危险性水平为0.05 g,部分地区高达0.1~0.15 g,意味着蒙古国地区背景地震危险性高,在进行地震危险性分析和地震区划时应充分考虑背景地震活动,采用不同起始震级的地震活动性模型计算得到的地震危险性水平具有较大的空间差异,因此在采用空间光滑地震活动性模型进行地震危险性分析时应采用多个模型加权平均的方法,平衡地震频度和地震震级的影响。     

考虑远场大震对持时影响的人工地震动时程

概率地震危险性分析方法确定的场地地震动反应谱Sa(T,(),综合考虑了场地周围潜在震源区对场地地震危险性的影响,通常称为一致概率反应谱,即不同控制周期T对应谱值的超越概率相同.在获得Sa(T,()后,还需要以Sa(T,()为目标合成用于场地土层地震反应分析或结构动力反应分析的人工地震动时程,通常步骤如下:     

新版地震区划图地震活动性模型与参数确定

地震活动性模型和地震动预测模型是概率地震危险性分析的两个核心。在新版地震区划图中,依据板内地震活动空间不均匀性分布的特点,在概率地震危险性分析方法(CPSHA)中采用了由地震统计区、背景潜在震源区和构造潜在震源区构成的三级层次性潜在震源区模型,并构建了相应的地震活动性模型。本文在论述CPSHA方法及其地震活动性模型基本概念的基础上,重点介绍了新版地震区划图地震活动性模型的三级潜在震源区模型的构成、地震活动性假定和基本特点,同时,也对新版地震区划图地震活动性模型的重要参数确定思路、方法与结果进行了介绍。本文将为更好地认识与理解我国新版地震动参数区划图提供有益的参考。     

地震危险性评估的方法：模型的不确定性及WGCEP-2002预测

由于危险性的潜在统计学信号特征未知，在概率地震危险性分析（PHSA）中模型的不确定性普遍存在。虽然人们很好地理解了在概率地震危险性分析中整合独特模型的参量不确定性的方法，但由于不同地震复发模型之间存在高度依赖性，实施这一方法要更为困难。我们所展示的是2002年加州地震概率工作组（WGCEP-2002）所使用的、用来把多重地震复发模型给出的概率分布进行联合的方法，其结果上有几处相反的效果。特别是，WGCEP-2002使用了一种模型的线性结合方法，该方法忽视了模型的依赖性，并在最终的危险性估计中造成了大的不确定性。并且，模型权重的选择以数据为基础，这有可能导致系统偏离最终概率分布。该工作组报告中所使用的权重选择方案亦产生出依赖于模型任意排序的结果。除了对当前的统计学问题进行分析之外，我们还为严格地把模型不确定性整合进概率地震危险性分析里展示了另一种可选方法。     

震源机制对概率地震危险性分析的影响

提出了在概率地震危险性分析的扩展中引入有关震源参数的先验信息。特别是将破裂形式与理论修正系数一起考虑应用于衰减定律。通过与实测资料、修正或未修正的衰减定律以及包括破裂方式参数的衰减定律结果的比较，评定了这一修正的有效性。地震危险性分析的概率特性得到保存，将描述与每个震源区有关的最可能的震源机制二维概率密度函数引入经典的危险性分析公式。这一新的表述方法也可用于离散分析的框架中。因此，根据离散分析设计的地震就以震源机制为特征。本文给出了在意大利亚平宁半岛南部运用的实例。与这一地区正断层作用的地震活动相比较，分析结果强调了在地震危险性分析中走滑事件的重要意义。     

累积绝对速度在核电厂地震危险性分析中的应用研究

指出了运用我国现行的考虑时空非均匀性的地震危险性分析计算方法对核电厂等设计精良的设施进行地震危险性分析时所存在的问题.介绍了累积绝对速度(CAV)的概念,并将其引入到我国现行的考虑时空非均匀性的地震危险性分析计算方法之中,用以排除厂址周围小震对核电厂地震危险性分析的影响,并选取实际工程场点进行了试算.试算结果表明,此方法能明显排除厂址周围小震对地震危险性分析结果的影响.     

Uncertainty Analysis and Expert Judgment in Seismic Hazard Analysis

The large uncertainty associated with the prediction of future earthquakes is usually regarded as the main reason for increased hazard estimates which have resulted from some recent large scale probabilistic seismic hazard analysis studies (e.g. the PEGASOS study in Switzerland and the Yucca Mountain study in the USA). It is frequently overlooked that such increased hazard estimates are characteristic for a single specific method of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA): the traditional (Cornell?CMcGuire) PSHA method which has found its highest level of sophistication in the SSHAC probability method. Based on a review of the SSHAC probability model and its application in the PEGASOS project, it is shown that the surprising results of recent PSHA studies can be explained to a large extent by the uncertainty model used in traditional PSHA, which deviates from the state of the art in mathematics and risk analysis. This uncertainty model, the Ang?CTang uncertainty model, mixes concepts of decision theory with probabilistic hazard assessment methods leading to an overestimation of uncertainty in comparison to empirical evidence. Although expert knowledge can be a valuable source of scientific information, its incorporation into the SSHAC probability method does not resolve the issue of inflating uncertainties in PSHA results. Other, more data driven, PSHA approaches in use in some European countries are less vulnerable to this effect. The most valuable alternative to traditional PSHA is the direct probabilistic scenario-based approach, which is closely linked with emerging neo-deterministic methods based on waveform modelling.     

地震危险性概率分析方法:存在的问题和纠正

地震危险性概率分析(PSHA)是目前最广泛应用于地震灾害与风险性评估的方法。然而它在计算中却存在着一个错误:把强地面运动衰减关系(一个函数)的条件超越概率等同于强地面运动误差(一个变量)的超越概率。这个错误导致了运用强地面运动误差(空间分布特征)去外推强地面运动的发生(时间分布特征)或称之为遍历性假设,同时也造成了对PSHA理解和应用上的困难。本文推导出新的灾害计算方法(称之为KY-PSHA)来纠正这种错误。     

Neo-Deterministic and Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessments: a Comparison over the Italian Territory

Estimates of seismic hazard obtained using the neo-deterministic approach (NDSHA) and the probabilistic approach (PSHA) are compared for the Italian territory. The NDSHA provides values larger than those given by the PSHA in areas where large earthquakes are observed and in areas identified as prone to large earthquakes, but lower values in low-seismicity areas. These differences suggest the adoption of the flexible, robust and physically sound NDSHA approach to overcome the proven shortcomings of PSHA, thus allowing for a reliable seismic hazard estimation, especially for those areas characterized by a prolonged quiescence, i.e. in tectonically active sites where events of only moderate size have occurred in historical times.     

Physics‐based probabilistic seismic hazard and loss assessment in large urban areas: A simplified application to Istanbul

A set of 3D physics‐based numerical simulations (PBS) of possible earthquakes scenarios in Istanbul along the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey) is considered in this article to provide a comprehensive example of application of PBS to probabilistic seismic hazard (PSHA) and loss assessment in a large urban area. To cope with the high‐frequency (HF) limitations of PBS, numerical results are first postprocessed by a recently introduced technique based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), providing broadband waveforms with a proper correlation of HF and low‐frequency (LF) portions of ground motion as well as a proper spatial correlation of peak values also at HF, that is a key feature for the seismic risk application at urban scale. Second, before application to PSHA, a statistical analysis of residuals is carried out to ensure that simulated results provide a set of realizations with a realistic within‐ and between‐event variability of ground motion. PBS results are then applied in a PSHA framework, adopting both the “generalized attenuation function” (GAF) approach, and a novel “footprint” (FP)‐based approach aiming at a convenient and direct application of PBS into PSHA. PSHA results from both approaches are then compared with those obtained from a more standard application of PSHA with empirical ground motion models. Finally, the probabilistic loss assessment of an extended simplified portfolio of buildings is investigated, comparing the results obtained adopting the different approaches: (i) GMPE, (ii) GAF, and (iii) FP. Only FP turned out to have the capability to account for the specific features of source and propagation path, while preserving the proper physically based spatial correlation characteristics, as required for a reliable loss estimate on a building portfolio spatially distributed over a large urban area.     

History of Modern Earthquake Hazard Mapping and Assessment in California Using a Deterministic or Scenario Approach

Modern earthquake ground motion hazard mapping in California began following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in the Los Angeles metropolitan area of southern California. Earthquake hazard assessment followed a traditional approach, later called Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA) in order to distinguish it from the newer Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). In DSHA, seismic hazard in the event of the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) magnitude from each of the known seismogenic faults within and near the state are assessed. The likely occurrence of the MCE has been assumed qualitatively by using late Quaternary and younger faults that are presumed to be seismogenic, but not when or within what time intervals MCE may occur. MCE is the largest or upper-bound potential earthquake in moment magnitude, and it supersedes and automatically considers all other possible earthquakes on that fault. That moment magnitude is used for estimating ground motions by applying it to empirical attenuation relationships, and for calculating ground motions as in neo-DSHA (Zuccolo et al., 2008). The first deterministic California earthquake hazard map was published in 1974 by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) which has been called the California Geological Survey (CGS) since 2002, using the best available fault information and ground motion attenuation relationships at that time. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) later assumed responsibility for printing the refined and updated peak acceleration contour maps which were heavily utilized by geologists, seismologists, and engineers for many years. Some engineers involved in the siting process of large important projects, for example, dams and nuclear power plants, continued to challenge the map(s). The second edition map was completed in 1985 incorporating more faults, improving MCE??s estimation method, and using new ground motion attenuation relationships from the latest published results at that time. CDMG eventually published the second edition map in 1992 following the Governor??s Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and at the demand of Caltrans. The third edition map was published by Caltrans in 1996 utilizing GIS technology to manage data that includes a simplified three-dimension geometry of faults and to facilitate efficient corrections and revisions of data and the map. The spatial relationship of fault hazards with highways, bridges or any other attribute can be efficiently managed and analyzed now in GIS at Caltrans. There has been great confidence in using DSHA in bridge engineering and other applications in California, and it can be confidently applied in any other earthquake-prone region. Earthquake hazards defined by DSHA are: (1) transparent and stable with robust MCE moment magnitudes; (2) flexible in their application to design considerations; (3) can easily incorporate advances in ground motion simulations; and (4) economical. DSHA and neo-DSHA have the same approach and applicability. The accuracy of DSHA has proven to be quite reasonable for practical applications within engineering design and always done with professional judgment. In the final analysis, DSHA is a reality-check for public safety and PSHA results. Although PSHA has been acclaimed as a better approach for seismic hazard assessment, it is DSHA, not PSHA, that has actually been used in seismic hazard assessment for building and bridge engineering, particularly in California.     

Assessment of ground motion variability and its effects on seismic hazard analysis: a case study for iceland

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) generally relies on the basic assumption that ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed for other similar tectonic regions can be adopted in the considered area. This implies that observed ground motion and its variability at considered sites could be modelled by the selected GMPEs. Until now ground-motion variability has been taken into account in PSHA by integrating over the standard deviation reported in GMPEs, which significantly affects estimated ground motions, especially at very low probabilities of exceedance. To provide insight on this issue, ground-motion variability in the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SISZ), where many ground-motion records are available, is assessed. Three statistical methods are applied to separate the aleatory variability into source (inter-event), site (inter-site) and residual (intra-event and intra-site) components. Furthermore, the current PSHA procedure that makes the ergodic assumption of equality between spatially and temporal variability is examined. In contrast to the ergodic assumption, several recent studies show that the observed ground-motion variability at an individual location is lower than that implied by the standard deviation of a GMPE. This could imply a mishandling of aleatory uncertainty in PSHA by ignoring spatial variability and by mixing aleatory and epistemic uncertainties in the computation of sigma. Station correction coefficients are introduced in order to capture site effects at different stations. The introduction of the non-ergodic assumption in PSHA leads to larger epistemic uncertainty, although this is not the same as traditional epistemic uncertainty modelled using different GMPEs. The epistemic uncertainty due to the site correction coefficients (i.e. mean residuals) could be better constrained for future events if more information regarding the characteristics of these seismic sources and path dependence could be obtained.     

A probabilistic framework for quantification of aftershock ground‐motion hazard in California: Methodology and parametric study

This paper presents a proposed method of aftershock probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (APSHA) similar to conventional ‘mainshock’ PSHA in that it estimates the likelihoods of ground motion intensity (in terms of peak ground accelerations, spectral accelerations or other ground motion intensity measures) due to aftershocks following a mainshock occurrence. This proposed methodology differs from the conventional mainshock PSHA in that mainshock occurrence rates remain constant for a conventional (homogeneous Poisson) earthquake occurrence model, whereas aftershock occurrence rates decrease with increased elapsed time from the initial occurrence of the mainshock. In addition, the aftershock ground motion hazard at a site depends on the magnitude and location of the causative mainshock, and the location of aftershocks is limited to an aftershock zone, which is also dependent on the location and magnitude of the initial mainshock. APSHA is useful for post‐earthquake safety evaluation where there is a need to quantify the rates of occurrence of ground motions caused by aftershocks following the initial rupture. This knowledge will permit, for example, more informed decisions to be made for building tagging and entry of damaged buildings for rescue, repair or normal occupancy. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Seismic damage accumulation in multiple mainshock–aftershock sequences

Earthquakes are generally clustered, both in time and space. Conventionally, each cluster is made of foreshocks, the mainshock, and aftershocks. Seismic damage can possibly accumulate because of the effects of multiple earthquakes in one cluster and/or because the structure is unrepaired between different clusters. Typically, the performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) framework neglects seismic damage accumulation. This is because (i) probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) only refers to mainshocks and (ii) classical fragility curves represent the failure probability in one event, of given intensity, only. However, for life cycle assessment, it can be necessary to account for the build-up of seismic losses because of damage in multiple events. It has been already demonstrated that a Markovian model (i.e., a Markov chain), accounting for damage accumulation in multiple mainshocks, can be calibrated by maintaining PSHA from the classical PBEE framework and replacing structural fragility with a set of state-dependent fragility curves. In fact, the Markov chain also works when damage accumulates in multiple aftershocks from a single mainshock of known magnitude and location, if aftershock PSHA replaces classical PSHA. Herein, this model is extended further, developing a Markovian model that accounts, at the same time, for damage accumulation: (i) within any mainshock–aftershock seismic sequence and (ii) among multiple sequences. The model is illustrated through applications to a series of six-story reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame buildings designed for three sites with different seismic hazard levels in Italy. The time-variant reliability assessment results are compared with the classical PBEE approach and the accumulation model that only considers mainshocks, so as to address the relevance of aftershocks for life cycle assessment.     

管道抗震设计规范有关地震作用的综述

本文通过介绍中国、日本、美国、英国、挪威的相关管道抗震规范,阐述了目前管道应变设计和性能设计的理念、方法以及对地震作用输入的要求。通过比较各国管道抗震设计规范,保证震后管道维持其服务功能的抗震设计理念已经得到了全世界范围的认可。现在的管道设计正向性能设计的方向发展,并提出了两级抗震设防的方法。其中,第二级以管道不发生泄漏为抗震设防目标,对管道的地震安全性评价工作提出了更高的要求,管道设计需要的地震动和地面永久变形参数也越来越多。在目前管道工程的地震安全性评价工作中,存在概率方法和确定性方法这两种方法并举的局面。针对管道的抗液化和滑坡设计,地面永久位移可以利用分解的地震安全性评价概率方法得到。针对管道的抗断设计,断层未来位错量的估计方法现在仍以确定性方法为主,概率方法因为断层位错量沿着破裂带的分布较为复杂仍有待进一步研究。