|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]明小娜,崔建文,杨健强,等.2021年云南漾濞MS6.4地震仪器地震烈度与宏观地震烈度对比分析[J].地震研究,2021,44(03):422-428.
　MING Xiaona,CUI Jianwen,YANG Jianqiang,et al.Comparative Analysis of the Instrumental Seismic Intensity and the Macro-seismic Intensity of the 2021 Yangbi,Yunnan MS6.4 Earthquake[J].Journal of Seismological Research,2021,44(03):422-428.
点击复制

2021年云南漾濞MS6.4地震仪器地震烈度与宏观地震烈度对比分析(PDF/HTML)

《地震研究》[ISSN:1000-0666/CN:53-1062/P]

卷:
44
期数:
2021年03期
页码:
422-428
栏目:
出版日期:
2021-10-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparative Analysis of the Instrumental Seismic Intensity and the Macro-seismic Intensity of the 2021 Yangbi,Yunnan MS6.4 Earthquake
作者:
明小娜; 崔建文; 杨健强; 于 江
(云南省地震局,云南 昆明 650224)
Author(s):
MING Xiaona; CUI Jianwen; YANG Jianqiang; YU Jiang
(Yunnan Earthquake Agency,Kunming 650224,Yunnan,China)
关键词:
仪器地震烈度;  宏观地震烈度;  漾濞MS6.4地震;  地震动记录
Keywords:
instrumental seismic intensity;  macro-scopic seismic intensity;  the Yangbi MS6.4 earthquake;  ground motion records
分类号:
P315.91
DOI:
-
摘要:
利用云南省强震动及地震预警台网获得的漾濞MS6.4地震地震动记录数据,根据《中国地震烈度表》的仪器烈度计算方法,得到各台站的仪器地震烈度。对比分析了漾濞MS6.4地震的仪器烈度图与宏观烈度图的异同,发现二者最高烈度相同、等震线长轴走向相似,但各烈度区面积与形状不相同; 对比分析了仪器烈度与调查点的评估烈度的吻合性,发现二者完全吻合的比例为81.25%,偏差±1度的比例为93.75%,说明仪器地震烈度在一定程度上能客观反映实际的震害情况。
Abstract:
According to the China Earthquake Intensity Table,we use the ground motion records of the Yangbi,Yunnan MS6.4 earthquake on May 21,2021 obtained by strong-motion stations to calculate the instrumental seismic intensity.Then we compare the map of instrumental seismic intensity and the map of macro scopic seismic intensity of the Yangbi MS6.4.We find that the two maps have the same highest intensity and the similar long axis of the isoseismal lines,but the area and shape of each intensity zone are different; the consistency of the instrumental intensity at the stations and the intensity on the corresponding survey sites is 81.25%,and the ratio of 1-degree deviation is 93.75%.It can be seen that the instrumental seismic intensity can objectively reflect the actual earthquake damage to some extent.

参考文献/References:

冯蔚,姜立新,杨天青,等.2014.芦山7.0级地震强震台仪器地震烈度与调查点烈度的对比分析[J].地震地质,36(1):222-229.

金星,张红才,李军,等.2013.地震仪器烈度标准初步研究[J].地球物理学进展,28(5):2336-2351.

李亮,李山有,纪忠华,等.2018.仪器烈度计算方法研究[J].震灾防御技术,13(4):801-809.

吕洲珩.2020.洱海流域地质环境承载力评价研究[D].北京:中国地质大学.

马鹏举.2020.仪器地震烈度计算方法[D].哈尔滨:中国地震局工程力学研究所.

孙柏涛,闫佳琦,李山有.2019.宏观地震烈度发展与其用途的演变[J].地震工程与工程振动,39(2):1-8.

孙得璋,张仁鹏,孙柏涛.2018.浅谈仪器地震烈度在地震烈度评定中的应用[J].建筑结构,48(S2):279-283.

田秀丰,张卫东,袁洁,等.2020.汶川8.0级地震仪器地震烈度与宏观地震烈度对比分析[J].地震工程学报,42(5):1226-1231.

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,(S1):119-128.

徐钦,田秀丰,王维欢,等.2018.2013年甘肃岷县—漳县6.6级地震仪器地震烈度与宏观调查烈度比较分析[J].地震工程学报,40(2):124-129.

Wald D J,Quitoriano V,Heaton T H,et al.1999.Relationships between peak ground acceleration,peak ground velocity,and modified mercalli intensity in California[J].Earthquake Spectra,15(3):557-564.

GB/T 17742—2020,中国地震烈度表[S].

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2021-06-28
基金项目:中国地震局地震工程与工程振动重点实验室重点专项(2020EEEVL0204)资助.

更新日期/Last Update: 2021-10-20