James La Greca, Mark Quigley, Jaroslav Vaculik, Peter Rayner, Trevor Allen
{"title":"使用烟囱易损性曲线的地面运动模型贝叶斯分析:2021年,5.9 mw Woods Point板内地震,澳大利亚维多利亚州","authors":"James La Greca, Mark Quigley, Jaroslav Vaculik, Peter Rayner, Trevor Allen","doi":"10.1177/87552930231206399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 22 September 2021 (AEST) MW 5.9 Woods Point earthquake occurred in an intraplate setting (southeast Australia) approximately 130 km East Northeast of the central business district of Melbourne (pop. ∼5.15 million). A lack of seismic instrumentation and a low population density in the epicentral region resulted in a dearth of near-source instrumental and “felt” report intensity data, limiting evaluation of the near-source performance of ground motion models (GMMs). To address this challenge, we first surveyed unreinforced masonry chimneys following the earthquake to establish damage states and develop fragility curves. Using Bayesian inference, and including pre-earthquake GMM weightings as Bayesian priors, we evaluate the relative performance of GMMs in predicting chimney observations for different fragility functions and seismic velocity profiles. At the most likely VS30 (760 m/s), the best performing models are AB06, A12, and CY08SWISS. GMMs that were preferentially selected for utility in the Australian National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHA18) prior to the Woods Point earthquake outperform other GMMs. The recently developed NGA-East GMM performs relatively well in the more distal region (e.g. >50 km) but is among the poorest performing GMMs in the near-source region across the range of VS30. Our new method of combining analysis of engineered features (chimneys) with Bayesian inference to evaluate the near-source performance of GMMs may have applicability in diverse settings worldwide, particularly in areas of sparse seismic instrumentation.","PeriodicalId":11392,"journal":{"name":"Earthquake Spectra","volume":"16 23","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bayesian analysis of ground motion models using chimney fragility curves: 2021, 5.9-Mw Woods Point intraplate earthquake, Victoria, Australia\",\"authors\":\"James La Greca, Mark Quigley, Jaroslav Vaculik, Peter Rayner, Trevor Allen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/87552930231206399\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 22 September 2021 (AEST) MW 5.9 Woods Point earthquake occurred in an intraplate setting (southeast Australia) approximately 130 km East Northeast of the central business district of Melbourne (pop. ∼5.15 million). A lack of seismic instrumentation and a low population density in the epicentral region resulted in a dearth of near-source instrumental and “felt” report intensity data, limiting evaluation of the near-source performance of ground motion models (GMMs). To address this challenge, we first surveyed unreinforced masonry chimneys following the earthquake to establish damage states and develop fragility curves. Using Bayesian inference, and including pre-earthquake GMM weightings as Bayesian priors, we evaluate the relative performance of GMMs in predicting chimney observations for different fragility functions and seismic velocity profiles. At the most likely VS30 (760 m/s), the best performing models are AB06, A12, and CY08SWISS. GMMs that were preferentially selected for utility in the Australian National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHA18) prior to the Woods Point earthquake outperform other GMMs. The recently developed NGA-East GMM performs relatively well in the more distal region (e.g. >50 km) but is among the poorest performing GMMs in the near-source region across the range of VS30. Our new method of combining analysis of engineered features (chimneys) with Bayesian inference to evaluate the near-source performance of GMMs may have applicability in diverse settings worldwide, particularly in areas of sparse seismic instrumentation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earthquake Spectra\",\"volume\":\"16 23\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earthquake Spectra\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231206399\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earthquake Spectra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231206399","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
2021年9月22日(AEST) w5.9级伍兹角地震发生在板块内(澳大利亚东南部),位于墨尔本中央商务区东北偏东约130公里处。∼515万)。由于震中地区缺乏地震仪器和人口密度低,导致近源仪器和“感觉”报告强度数据的缺乏,限制了对地面运动模型(gmm)近源性能的评估。为了应对这一挑战,我们首先在地震后对未加固的砌体烟囱进行了调查,以建立破坏状态并绘制易损性曲线。利用贝叶斯推理,并将地震前GMM权重作为贝叶斯先验,我们评估了GMM在不同易损函数和地震速度剖面下预测烟囱观测值的相对性能。在最可能的V S 30(760米/秒),表现最好的型号是AB06, A12和CY08SWISS。在伍兹角地震之前,澳大利亚国家地震灾害模型(NSHA18)优先选择的gmm比其他gmm表现更好。最近开发的NGA-East GMM在较远的区域(例如50公里)表现相对较好,但在vs30范围内的近源区域表现最差。我们的新方法将工程特征(烟囱)分析与贝叶斯推理相结合,以评估gmm的近源性能,这可能适用于世界各地的各种环境,特别是在稀疏地震仪器的地区。
Bayesian analysis of ground motion models using chimney fragility curves: 2021, 5.9-Mw Woods Point intraplate earthquake, Victoria, Australia
The 22 September 2021 (AEST) MW 5.9 Woods Point earthquake occurred in an intraplate setting (southeast Australia) approximately 130 km East Northeast of the central business district of Melbourne (pop. ∼5.15 million). A lack of seismic instrumentation and a low population density in the epicentral region resulted in a dearth of near-source instrumental and “felt” report intensity data, limiting evaluation of the near-source performance of ground motion models (GMMs). To address this challenge, we first surveyed unreinforced masonry chimneys following the earthquake to establish damage states and develop fragility curves. Using Bayesian inference, and including pre-earthquake GMM weightings as Bayesian priors, we evaluate the relative performance of GMMs in predicting chimney observations for different fragility functions and seismic velocity profiles. At the most likely VS30 (760 m/s), the best performing models are AB06, A12, and CY08SWISS. GMMs that were preferentially selected for utility in the Australian National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHA18) prior to the Woods Point earthquake outperform other GMMs. The recently developed NGA-East GMM performs relatively well in the more distal region (e.g. >50 km) but is among the poorest performing GMMs in the near-source region across the range of VS30. Our new method of combining analysis of engineered features (chimneys) with Bayesian inference to evaluate the near-source performance of GMMs may have applicability in diverse settings worldwide, particularly in areas of sparse seismic instrumentation.
期刊介绍:
Earthquake Spectra, the professional peer-reviewed journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), serves as the publication of record for the development of earthquake engineering practice, earthquake codes and regulations, earthquake public policy, and earthquake investigation reports. The journal is published quarterly in both printed and online editions in February, May, August, and November, with additional special edition issues.
EERI established Earthquake Spectra with the purpose of improving the practice of earthquake hazards mitigation, preparedness, and recovery — serving the informational needs of the diverse professionals engaged in earthquake risk reduction: civil, geotechnical, mechanical, and structural engineers; geologists, seismologists, and other earth scientists; architects and city planners; public officials; social scientists; and researchers.