关于新西兰地震灾害发生或超越分类的考虑

IF 0.8 Q4 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL
M. Fox
{"title":"关于新西兰地震灾害发生或超越分类的考虑","authors":"M. Fox","doi":"10.5459/bnzsee.56.1.1-10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is widely accepted as the most robust approach for evaluating the seismic hazard at a given site and provides the basis for seismic loads in most design codes. To obtain more detailed information on the specific earthquake scenarios contributing to the hazard at a site, it is common to include seismic hazard disaggregation results within a PSHA. This is mostly done in terms of exceedance of the intensity level of interest, but for many applications a disaggregation in terms of occurrence of the intensity level of interest is more appropriate. A number of researchers have examined the theoretical differences between the exceedance and occurrence approaches; however, few have provided extensive application examples. This paper therefore compares the approaches for 24 sites across New Zealand. It is shown that the two different approaches can result in moderate differences in the mean magnitudes and site-to-source distances, as well as differences in the relative contributions from different Tectonic Region Types. Whilst some weak trends are identified, it is concluded that generally it is not possible to know a priori whether the difference between occurrence or exceedance approaches would have a tangible impact on disaggregation results or the results of subsequent applications. It is therefore recommended that developers of seismic hazard analysis software and providers of seismic hazard data products make both approaches readily available.","PeriodicalId":46396,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Considerations on seismic hazard disaggregation in terms of occurrence or exceedance in New Zealand\",\"authors\":\"M. Fox\",\"doi\":\"10.5459/bnzsee.56.1.1-10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is widely accepted as the most robust approach for evaluating the seismic hazard at a given site and provides the basis for seismic loads in most design codes. To obtain more detailed information on the specific earthquake scenarios contributing to the hazard at a site, it is common to include seismic hazard disaggregation results within a PSHA. This is mostly done in terms of exceedance of the intensity level of interest, but for many applications a disaggregation in terms of occurrence of the intensity level of interest is more appropriate. A number of researchers have examined the theoretical differences between the exceedance and occurrence approaches; however, few have provided extensive application examples. This paper therefore compares the approaches for 24 sites across New Zealand. It is shown that the two different approaches can result in moderate differences in the mean magnitudes and site-to-source distances, as well as differences in the relative contributions from different Tectonic Region Types. Whilst some weak trends are identified, it is concluded that generally it is not possible to know a priori whether the difference between occurrence or exceedance approaches would have a tangible impact on disaggregation results or the results of subsequent applications. It is therefore recommended that developers of seismic hazard analysis software and providers of seismic hazard data products make both approaches readily available.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.56.1.1-10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.56.1.1-10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

概率地震危险性分析(PSHA)被广泛认为是评估给定地点地震危险性的最可靠的方法,并为大多数设计规范中的地震荷载提供了依据。为了获得对某一地点造成灾害的具体地震情景的更详细信息,通常在PSHA中包括地震灾害分类结果。这主要是根据超出兴趣的强度级别进行的,但是对于许多应用程序,根据兴趣的强度级别的出现进行分类更为合适。许多研究人员已经研究了超越和发生方法之间的理论差异;然而,很少有人提供广泛的应用实例。因此,本文比较了新西兰24个地点的方法。结果表明,两种方法在平均震级和震源点距离上存在中等差异,不同构造区域类型的相对贡献也存在差异。虽然确定了一些微弱的趋势,但得出的结论是,一般不可能先验地知道发生或超越方法之间的差异是否会对分解结果或随后应用的结果产生切实影响。因此,建议地震灾害分析软件的开发人员和地震灾害数据产品的提供者使这两种方法都易于获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Considerations on seismic hazard disaggregation in terms of occurrence or exceedance in New Zealand
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is widely accepted as the most robust approach for evaluating the seismic hazard at a given site and provides the basis for seismic loads in most design codes. To obtain more detailed information on the specific earthquake scenarios contributing to the hazard at a site, it is common to include seismic hazard disaggregation results within a PSHA. This is mostly done in terms of exceedance of the intensity level of interest, but for many applications a disaggregation in terms of occurrence of the intensity level of interest is more appropriate. A number of researchers have examined the theoretical differences between the exceedance and occurrence approaches; however, few have provided extensive application examples. This paper therefore compares the approaches for 24 sites across New Zealand. It is shown that the two different approaches can result in moderate differences in the mean magnitudes and site-to-source distances, as well as differences in the relative contributions from different Tectonic Region Types. Whilst some weak trends are identified, it is concluded that generally it is not possible to know a priori whether the difference between occurrence or exceedance approaches would have a tangible impact on disaggregation results or the results of subsequent applications. It is therefore recommended that developers of seismic hazard analysis software and providers of seismic hazard data products make both approaches readily available.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
17.60%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信