基于普查数据的地震灾害隐患评估及其影响因素分析

吕伟超; 杨永强; 戴君武

doi:10.11899/zzfy20240201

基于普查数据的地震灾害隐患评估及其影响因素分析

doi: 10.11899/zzfy20240201

吕伟超^{1, 2,},
杨永强^{1, 2, ,},
戴君武^{1, 2}

1.
中国地震局工程力学研究所, 地震工程与工程振动重点实验室, 哈尔滨 150080
2.
地震灾害防治应急管理部重点实验室, 哈尔滨 150080

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金（52078472）

详细信息

作者简介:
吕伟超，男，生于1997年。博士研究生。主要从事地震灾害评估及工程减隔震研究工作。E-mail：weichaolyu@163.com

通讯作者:
杨永强，男，生于1983年。研究员。主要从事结构地震反应分析工作。E-mail：yangyongqiang@iem.ac.cn

计量
- 文章访问数: 72
- HTML全文浏览量: 41
- PDF下载量: 25
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-05-07
- 刊出日期: 2024-06-30

Earthquake Hazard Assessment and Analysis of Influencing Factors Based on Census Data

Lv Weichao^{1, 2
,},
Yang Yongqiang^{1, 2
, ,},
Dai Junwu^{1, 2}

1.
Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China
2.
Key Laboratory of Earthquake Disaster Mitigation, Ministry of Emergency Management, Harbin 150080, China

摘要

摘要: 地震灾害隐患评估是第一次全国自然灾害综合风险普查涵盖的工作，随着地震灾害隐患评估工作的推进，多省市承灾体地震灾害隐患评估工作相继完成，为利用普查结果辅助有关部门有针对性地做出决策，需分析承灾体隐患评估的影响因素。基于第一次全国自然灾害综合风险普查项目建筑调查数据，首先统计分析某省级行政区内不同烈度区域及峰值加速度调整区内5类承灾体数量、抗震设防水平、变形损伤现状、建造年代等情况；其次采用隐患等级技术评定规范计算承灾体单体隐患指数，并给出不同类别区域地震灾害隐患等级；最后结合烈度调升及峰值加速度调整情况对隐患评定结果影响因素进行对比分析。研究结果表明，烈度和设防峰值加速度提升均会使承灾单体及区域隐患等级整体提高；农村建筑区域地震灾害隐患等级总体较高，其中农村非住宅为地震灾害重点隐患的主要承灾体；重点隐患单体中变形损伤的影响随抗震设防烈度的升高而降低，一般隐患等级单体中变形损伤及建造年代的影响随抗震设防烈度的升高而降低。
- 综合风险普查 /
- 地震灾害隐患评估 /
- 地震灾害隐患等级 /
- 隐患等级影响因素
Abstract: The earthquake hazard assessment of buildings is a task covered by the first national comprehensive risk census of natural disasters. As the work of earthquake hazard assessment progress, the earthquake hazard assessment of disaster-bearing buildings in many provinces and cities has been completed one after another. To utilize the survey results to assist relevant departments in making targeted decisions, it is necessary to analyze the influencing factors of disaster-bearing bodies and their importance. Based on the building survey data of the first national comprehensive risk census of natural disasters, this paper first statistically analyzes the number, seismic fortification level, deformation and damage status, and construction age of five types of disaster-bearing buildings in different seismic intensity areas and peak acceleration adjustment areas in a provincial administrative region. Secondly, it uses the technical evaluation specification of hazard level to calculate the hazard index of individual disaster-bearing buildings. Then, it gives the earthquake disaster hazard level of different types of regions. Finally, it compares and summarizes the influencing factors of the hazard assessment results based on the adjustment of seismic intensity and peak acceleration. The results show that with the increase of intensity and the increase of peak acceleration of fortification, the hazard level of buildings and regions will increase overall. In terms of category distribution, the overall hazard level of earthquake disasters in rural buildings is relatively high, among which rural non-residential buildings are the main category of disaster-bearing buildings with major earthquake disaster hazards. In terms of influencing factors, the impact of deformation and damage on key hazard individuals decreases with the increase of seismic fortification intensity, while the impact of deformation and damage and construction age on general hazard individuals decreases as the seismic fortification intensity increases.
- Comprehensive risk survey /
- Earthquake hazard assessment /
- Earthquake disaster Hazard level /
- Influencing factors of Hazard level

HTML全文

图 1 该行政区内各选定区域内不同类别承灾体数量（单位：万栋）

Figure 1. The number of different types of buildings in selected areas of the district

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 不同抗震设防烈度区承灾体类别与地震灾害隐患等级

Figure 2. The classification of buildings and the hazard levels of earthquake disaster in different intensity areas

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 不同SF-PGA调整区域承灾体单体地震灾害隐患等级

Figure 3. Hazard levels of individual buildings in different SF-PGA adjustment zones

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 承灾体单体的地震灾害隐患等级

Table 1. Earthquake hazard levels for the single building

隐患等级	承灾体地震灾害隐患指数I_PEH
轻微	(0.25, 1.0]
一般	(0.075, 0.25]
重点	(0, 0.075]

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 区域分类地震灾害隐患等级

Table 2. Earthquake hazard levels with region Classification

隐患等级	区域分类地震灾害隐患指数$ {J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}i} $
轻微	$ {J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}3}\leqslant 0.01 $且$ {J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}2}+{J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}3}\leqslant 0.1 $
一般	$ 0.01 < {J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}3}\leqslant 0.1 $或$ 0.1 < {J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}2}+{J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}3}\leqslant 0.5 $
重点	$ {J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}3} > 0.1 $或$ {J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}2}+{J}_{\mathrm{P}{{\mathrm{E}}}\mathrm{H}3} > 0.5 $

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 不同抗震设防烈度区域单体地震灾害隐患评估结果

Table 3. Evaluation results of earthquake hazard for single building in different intensity areas

区域	隐患等级	城镇住宅/栋	城镇非住宅/栋	农村集合住宅/栋	农村独立住宅/栋	农村非住宅/栋	总计/栋	占比/%
6度区	轻微	228 085	333 589	19 356	4 829 737	506 691	5 917 458	95.1886
	一般	2 068	8 685	68	228 831	59 349	299 001	4.8098
	重点	5	8	0	7	81	101	0.00 16
	总计	230 158	342 282	19 424	5 058 575	566 121	6 216 560	100.0000
7度区	轻微	526 720	747 820	50 046	81 923	66 868	1 473 377	9.5040
	一般	139 841	197 253	19 701	11 939 759	1 731 396	14 027 950	90.4867
	重点	71	120	1	77	1 175	1 444	0.00 93
	总计	666 632	945 193	69 748	12 021 759	1 799 439	15 502 771	100.0000
8度区	轻微	118 268	125 824	23 040	65 477	20 348	352 957	7.0962
	一般	9 174	10 942	87	4 144 155	455 655	4 620 013	92.8854
	重点	33	50	0	34	798	915	0.0184
	总计	127 475	136 816	23 127	4 209 666	476 801	4 973 885	100.0000

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 不同抗震设防烈度区内区域分类地震灾害隐患评估结果

Table 4. Evaluation results of potential earthquake hazards in different intensity zones with regional classification

区域	城镇住宅	城镇非住宅	农村集合住宅	农村独立住宅	农村非住宅	总体
6度区	轻微	轻微	轻微	轻微	一般	轻微
7度区	一般	一般	一般	重点	重点	重点
8度区	轻微	轻微	轻微	重点	重点	重点

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 SF-PGA调整区域单体地震灾害隐患评估结果

Table 5. The evaluation results of individual earthquake hazard in SF-PGA adjustment area

区域	隐患等级	城镇住宅/栋	城镇非住宅/栋	农村集合住宅/栋	农村独立住宅/栋	农村非住宅/栋	总计/栋	占比/%
降低0.05 g区	轻微	943	2 318	611	16 853	2 168	22 893	14.3452
	一般	6	135	2	122 667	13 861	136 671	85.6410
	重点	0	0	0	0	22	22	0.0138
	总计	949	2 453	613	139 520	16 051	159 586	100.0000
提升0.05 g区	轻微	283 539	385 076	28 786	67 248	35 529	800 178	7.6920
	一般	121 653	143 678	18 395	8 272 384	1 045 427	9 601 537	92.2981
	重点	49	52	1	58	868	1 028	0.0099
	总计	405 241	528 806	47 182	8 339 690	1 081 824	10 402 743	100.0000
提升0.10 g区	轻微	1 623	3 907	1 070	506	509	7 615	1.9828
	一般	147	252	220	342 081	33 693	376 393	98.0037
	重点	0	0	0	2	50	52	0.0135
	总计	1 770	4 159	1 290	342 589	34 252	384 060	100.0000

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 SF-PGA调整区域地震灾害隐患评估结果

Table 6. Evaluation results of regional earthquake hazard in SF-PGA adjustment areas

区域	城镇住宅	城镇非住宅	农村集合住宅	农村独立住宅	农村非住宅	总体
降低0.05 g区	轻微	轻微	轻微	重点	重点	重点
提升0.05 g区	重点	重点	一般	重点	重点	重点
提升0.10 g区	一般	轻微	一般	重点	重点	重点

下载: 导出CSV

表 7 各区域隐患等级对应影响因素

Table 7. Influencing factors corresponding to hazard levels in each region

区域	隐患等级	数量占比/%				抗震设防达标占比/%	存在明显变形损伤占比/%
区域	隐患等级	1989年前	1990—1999年	2000—2010年	2011年后	抗震设防达标占比/%	存在明显变形损伤占比/%
6度区	重点隐患	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0
6度区	一般隐患	47.15	26.76	19.28	6.81	1.2	76.37
7度区	重点隐患	86.08	8.86	3.67	1.39	0.0	52.84
7度区	一般隐患	32.55	29.6	27.43	10.42	0.06	3.79
8度区	重点隐患	92.9	2.62	2.62	1.86	0.0	23.72
8度区	一般隐患	24.37	30.96	26.94	17.73	0.18	4.93
降低0.05 g区	重点隐患	95.45	0.00	4.55	0.00	0.00	18.18
降低0.05 g区	一般隐患	41.71	26.45	20.18	11.66	0.04	3.14
提升0.05 g区	重点隐患	87.45	7.49	3.40	1.66	0.19	41.44
提升0.05 g区	一般隐患	24.97	30.83	31.13	13.07	0.21	3.97
提升0.10 g区	重点隐患	92.31	7.69	0.00	0.00	0.00	23.08
提升0.10 g区	一般隐患	27.18	31.84	29.51	11.47	0.05	4.97

下载: 导出CSV

表 8 各烈度区分类承灾体地震灾害隐患影响因素

Table 8. Earthquake hazard influencing factors of buildings classified with intensity region

区域	类别	设防烈度达标占比/%	无病害占比/%	存在明显变形损伤占比/%	建造年代1989年之前占比/%
6度区	城镇住宅	97.43	24.10	0.66	14.62
	城镇非住宅	91.12	24.78	0.45	9.34
	农村集合住宅	99.57	95.03	0.53	4.50
7度区	城镇住宅	61.69	24.40	0.87	16.67
	城镇非住宅	53.5	25.21	0.62	9.20
	农村集合住宅	63.92	93.73	0.46	6.01
8度区	城镇住宅	93.4	29.88	0.75	9.33
	城镇非住宅	91.23	33.06	0.69	7.28
	农村集合住宅	99.87	96.48	0.47	3.11

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(19)

柏文,杨永强,戴君武等,2021. 四川长宁 M _S6.0级地震珙县中学教学楼震害调查. 地震工程与工程振动,41(3):86−94.

Bai W., Yang Y. Q., Dai J. W., et al., 2021. Earthquake investigation of the teaching building in Gongxian middle school during the M _S6.0 Changning earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 41(3): 86−94. (in Chinese)

陈洪富,戴君武,孙柏涛等,2011. 玉树7.1级地震人员伤亡影响因素调查与初步分析. 地震工程与工程震动,31(4):18−25.

Chen H. F., Dai J. W., Sun B. T., et al., 2011. Investigation report on influence factors of casualties in April 14, 2010 Yushu earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 31(4): 18−25. (in Chinese)

戴君武,柏文,周宝峰等,2022. 从泸定6.8级地震看建筑隔震技术发展亟待解决的问题. 地震工程与工程振动,42(6):1−11.

Dai J. W., Bai W., Zhou B. F., et al., 2022. Urgent problems need to be solved in the development of seismic base isolation for buildings from the Luding M _S6.8 earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 42(6): 1−11. (in Chinese)

顾泺怡,路建波,朱奕非,2024. 浙江省体育场馆地震灾害风险隐患评估分析及探讨. 地震科学进展,54(5):311−315.

Gu L. Y., Lu J. B., Zhu Y. F., 2024. Analysis and discussion on potential earthquake hazards of gymnasiums in Zhejiang Province. Progress in Earthquake Sciences, 54(5): 311−315. (in Chinese)

郭红梅,赵真,张莹等,2021. 一种适用于山地地区的地震灾害风险评估方法−−以四川省宝兴县为例. 灾害学,36(3):147−152. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-811X.2021.03.025

Guo H. M., Zhao Z., Zhang Y., et al., 2021. Study on quantitative assessment and classification method of earthquake disaster risk: a case study of Baoxing county. Journal of Catastrophology, 36(3): 147−152. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-811X.2021.03.025

郭小东,石占齐,卢继文等,2024. 石窟寺地震灾害风险评估方法研究−−以云冈石窟为例. (2024-03-15)[2024-05-07]. http://kns. cnki. net/kcms/detail/11.2068. TU. 20240314.2105. 002. html.

Guo X. D. ,Shi Z. Q. ,Lu J. W. ,et al. ,2024. Study on risk assessment method of earthquake disaster in grotto temple-taking Yungang Grottoes as an example. (2024-03-15)[2024-05-07]. http://kns. cnki. net/kcms/detail/11.2068. TU. 20240314.2105. 002. html.(in Chinese). (in Chinese)

何巧灵,马玉飞,赵民等,2022. 济南市城镇既有房屋建筑抗震性能普查工作的实施及应用. 城市勘测,(1):192−195. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-8262.2022.01.045

He Q. L., Ma Y. F., Zhao M., et al., 2022. Study on seismic performace survey technology of existing buildings in Jinan city. Urban Geotechnical Investigation & Surveying, (1): 192−195. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-8262.2022.01.045

李姜,张合,刘志辉,2021. 张家口地区精细化地震灾害风险评估. 震灾防御技术,16(1):134−145. doi: 10.11899/zzfy20210114

Li J., Zhang H., Liu Z. H., 2021. Refined risk assessment of earthquake disaster in Zhangjiakou area. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, 16(1): 134−145. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11899/zzfy20210114

马小平,朱瑞,孙艳萍等,2023. 基于建筑物详查的地震灾害重点隐患风险评估−−以临夏州为例. 地质论评, 69 (S1):509−511.

Ma X. P. , Zhu R. , Sun Y. P. , et al. , 2023. Risk assessment of key hidden dangers of earthquake disaster based on detailed building survey--An example of Linxia City. Geological Review, 69 (S1): 509−511. (in Chinese)

潘毅,彭鑫,王腾等,2024. 泸定6.8级地震医疗建筑震害调查与分析. 建筑结构学报,45(5):14−29.

Pan Y., Peng X., Wang T., et al., 2024. Seismic damage investigation and analysis of hospital buildings in M _S6.8 Luding earthquake. Journal of Building Structures, 45(5): 14−29. (in Chinese)

全国自然灾害综合风险普查技术总体组,2020. 全国自然灾害综合风险普查工程(一)开展全国自然灾害综合风险普查的背景. 中国减灾,(1):42−45. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-4549.2020.01.011

韶丹,田勤虎,张炜超等,2023. 陕西省神木市建筑物地震灾害隐患评估. 地震研究,46(3):440−445.

Shao D., Tian Q. H., Zhang W. C., et al., 2023. Evaluation of potential earthquake-hazard of buildings in Shenmu city, Shaanxi province. Journal of Seismological Research, 46(3): 440−445. (in Chinese)

史铁花,王翠坤,郭浩等,2024. 基于普查的既有建筑抗震隐患评价技术研究. (2024-01-13)[2024-05-07]. https://doi. org/10.19701/j. jzjg. 20232447.

Shi T. H. ,Wang C. K. ,Guo H. ,et al. ,2024. Research on seismic hazard assessment technology for existing buildings based on census. (2024-01-13)[2024-05-07]. https://doi. org/10.19701/j. jzjg. 20232447. (in Chinese)

孙柏涛,张桂欣,2017. 中国大陆建筑物地震灾害风险分布研究. 土木工程学报,50(9):1−7.

Sun B. T., Zhang G. X., 2017. Study on seismic disaster risk distribution of buildings in China’s mainland. China Civil Engineering Journal, 50(9): 1−7. (in Chinese)

王东明,高永武,2019. 城市建筑群概率地震灾害风险评估研究. 工程力学,36(7):165−173.

Wang D. M., Gao Y. W., 2019. Study on the probabilistic seismic disaster risk assessment of urban building complex. Engineering Mechanics, 36(7): 165−173. (in Chinese)

杨格格,杨艳昭,游珍等,2011. 中国陆域地震灾害的时空分布格局. 地球科学进展,26(5):548−555.

Yang G. G., Yang Y. Z., You Z., et al., 2011. The temporal and spatial distribution pattern of earthquake disaster in Chinese mainland. Advances in Earth Science, 26(5): 548−555. (in Chinese)

杨永强,柏文,戴君武等,2023. 四川长宁Ms6.0级地震建筑震害调查与分析. 建筑结构,53(S2):738−743.

Yang Y. Q., Bai W., Dai J. W., et al., 2023. Investigation and analysis of building damage caused by M _S6.0 Changning earthquake in Shichuan ProVince. Building Structure, 53(S2): 738−743. (in Chinese)

张桂欣,孙柏涛,陈相兆等,2018. 北京市建筑抗震能力分类及地震灾害风险分析. 地震工程与工程振动,38(3):223−229.

Zhang G. X., Sun B. T., Chen X. Z., et al., 2018. Seismic capacity classification of buildings and seismic disaster risk analysis in Beijing City. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 38(3): 223−229. (in Chinese)

赵东升,靳京,吴绍洪,2022. 区域地震灾害房屋脆弱性曲线构建研究. 自然灾害学报,31(1):127−136.

Zhao D. S., Jin J., Wu S. H., 2022. Research on regional seismic vulnerability curves of buildings in China. Journal of Natural Disasters, 31(1): 127−136. (in Chinese)

施引文献

资源附件(0)

访问统计