| Citation: |
Li Y N，Xu C，Geng F，Bu C Y，Wen Z P. 2024. Vulnerability analyses of masonry structure under induced earthquake. Acta Seismologica Sinica，46（5）：906−918. DOI: 10.11939/jass.20230060
|
The impact of earthquake induced by shale gas mining has attracted the attention of the government, academia and the public. It is of scientific significance and application value for the prevention and control of earthquake disaster risk to carry out seismic vulnerability research of induced earthquakes. There are significant differences between induced earthquakes and natural earthquakes in ground motion characteristics, and their seismic responses to engineering structures are also very different. In order to reveal the influence of induced earthquake and natural earthquake on the seismic effects of building structure and the distribution of failure probability of masonry structure, this paper takes typical masonry structure as the research object and develops the vulnerability study considering the effects of induced earthquake. At first, analysis models of typical three-story and six-story masonry structures are established, and then 40 natural ground motions and induced seismic ground motion with similar magnitude and epicenter distances are selected as inputs to the Pushover analysis. Finally vulnerability curves based on peak ground acceleration （PGA） and basic periodic acceleration response spectrum value Sa of the structure are established respectively. The cyclic loading method is used to analyze and discuss the structural collapse vulnerability under two induced earthquakes. The analysis shows that the induced seismic ground motion contains more high frequency components, while the natural ground motion has more low frequency components, when PGA is used as the vulnerability parameter, the vulnerability of natural ground motion is significantly higher than that of induced seismic ground motion. When Sa is used as the vulnerability parameter to input ground motion, the vulnerability curves of the three-story masonry structure are close to each other under the action of two kinds of ground motions because the basic mode is dominant. However, the high-order mode of six-story masonry structure has some influence on the seismic response of the structure, and the high-frequency components of induced seismic ground motion are more abundant than those of natural ground motion, so the vulnerability of six-story masonry structure under induced seismic ground motion is higher than that of natural ground motion. In addition, the cyclic loading method is used to analyze the vulnerability of masonry structures under the two induced earthquakes. The results show that the damage probability of structures increases obviously under the action of two induced earthquakes.
|
郝敏,谢礼立,李伟. 2007. 基于砌体结构破坏损伤的地震烈度物理标准研究[J]. 地震工程与工程振动,27(5):27–32.
|
|
Hao M,Xie L L,Li W. 2007. Study on physical measure of seismic intensity based on damage to masonry structures[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,27(5):27–32 (in Chinese).
|
|
何登发,鲁人齐,黄涵宇,王晓山,姜华,张伟康. 2019. 长宁页岩气开发区地震的构造地质背景[J]. 石油勘探与开发,46(5):993–1006.
|
|
He D F,Lu R Q,Huang H Y,Wang X S,Jiang H,Zhang W K. 2019. Tectonic and geological background of the earthquake hazards in Changning shale gas development zone,Sichuan basin,SW China[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development,46(5):993–1006 (in Chinese).
|
|
黄维,钱江,庄彬彬. 2011. 基于两次推覆分析考虑损伤效应的结构抗震性能评估[J]. 结构工程师,27(5):111–115.
|
|
Huang W,Qian J,Zhuang B B. 2011. Seismic performance analysis of structures considering damage effect based on twice Pushover analysis[J]. Structural Engineers,27(5):111–115 (in Chinese).
|
|
刘晶波,王文晖,赵冬冬,张小波. 2013. 循环往复加载的地下结构Pushover分析方法及其在地震损伤分析中的应用[J]. 地震工程学报,35(1):21–28.
|
|
Liu J B,Wang W H,Zhao D D,Zhang X B. 2013. Pushover analysis method of underground structures under reversal load and its application in seismic damage analysis[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal,35(1):21–28 (in Chinese).
|
|
缪志伟,马千里,叶列平,陆新征. 2008. Pushover方法的准确性和适用性研究[J]. 工程抗震与加固改造,30(1):55–59.
|
|
Miao Z W,Ma Q L,Ye L P,Lu X Z. 2008. Study on the accuracy and applicability of the Pushover analysis[J]. Earthquake Resistant Engineering and Retrofitting,30(1):55–59 (in Chinese).
|
|
叶列平,马千里,缪志伟. 2009. 结构抗震分析用地震动强度指标的研究[J]. 地震工程与工程振动,29(4):9–22.
|
|
Ye L P,Ma Q L,Miao Z W. 2009. Study on earthquake intensities for seismic analysis of structures[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,29(4):9–22 (in Chinese).
|
|
张令心,江近仁,刘洁平. 2002. 多层住宅砖房的地震易损性分析[J]. 地震工程与工程振动,22(1):49–55.
|
|
Zhang L X,Jiang J R,Liu J P. 2002. Seismic vulnerability analysis of multistory dwelling brick buildings[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,22(1):49–55 (in Chinese).
|
|
张勇. 2013. RC框架结构Pushover分析方法顶点位移的概率研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南大学: 8–28.
|
|
Zhang Y. 2013. Probability Analysis of Top Displacement for Pushover Analysis Method of RC Frame Structure[D]. Changsha: Hunan University: 8−28 （in Chinese）.
|
|
Assatourians K,Atkinson G M. 2019. Processed ground-motion records from induced earthquakes for use in engineering applications[J]. Can J Civil Eng,47(1):96–108.
|
|
Chase R E,Liel A B,Luco N,Baird B W. 2019. Seismic loss and damage in light-frame wood buildings from sequences of induced earthquakes[J]. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn,48(12):1365–1383. doi: 10.1002/eqe.3189
|
|
Cornell C A,Jalayer F,Hamburger R O,Foutch D A. 2002. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines[J]. J Struct Eng,128(4):526–533. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)
|
|
Crowley H,Pinho R,Polidoro B,Van Elk J. 2017. Developing fragility and consequence models for buildings in the Groningen field[J]. Neth J Geosci,96(5):S247–S257.
|
|
Crowley H,Pinho R,Van Elk J,Uilenreef J. 2019. Probabilistic damage assessment of buildings due to induced seismicity[J]. Bull Earthq Eng,17(8):4495–4516. doi: 10.1007/s10518-018-0462-1
|
|
Da Silva A H A,Pereira E M V,Pita G L,Siqueira G H,Vieira Jr L C M. 2021. Damage estimation in reinforced concrete buildings from induced earthquakes in Brazil[J]. Eng Struct,234(1):111904.
|
|
Kallioras S,Graziotti F,Penna A. 2019. Numerical assessment of the dynamic response of a URM terraced house exposed to induced seismicity[J]. Bull Earthq Eng,17(3):1521–1552. doi: 10.1007/s10518-018-0495-5
|
|
Kurkowski J L. 2018. Seismic Vulnerability of Masonry Facades in Texas and Oklahoma Regions[D]. Austin: The University of Texas: 1−86.
|
|
Mulder M, Perey P. 2018. Gas production and earthquakes in Groningen: Reflection on economic and social consequences[C]//41st International Conference of the International Association for Energy Economics. Groningen, Netherlands: Centre for Energy Economics Research, University of Groningen: 69.
|
|
Shome N. 1999. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures[D]. Stanford: Stanford University: 45−192.
|
|
Walsh F R,Zoback M D. 2015. Oklahoma’s recent earthquakes and saltwater disposal[J]. Sci Adv,1(5):e1500195. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500195
|
|
Yang H F,Zhou P C,Fang N,Zhu G H,Xu W B,Su J R,Meng F B,Chu R S. 2020. A shallow shock:The 25 February 2019 ML4.9 earthquake in the Weiyuan shale gas field in Sichuan,China[J]. Seismol Res Lett,91(6):3182–3194. doi: 10.1785/0220200202
|
| 1. |
赵志远，宋昭，陈婷，冯向东，王晓山. 2022年平山4.3级地震震源机制及发震机理. 华北地震科学. 2024(03): 91-95 .
| |
| 2. |
郑雪刚，马学军，赵鹏毕. 新疆伽师M_S6.4地震震源深度测定研究. 内陆地震. 2022(02): 130-138 .
| |
| 3. |
赵飞，李杰，朱明，徐益飞，何必. 泸县6.0级地震公路震害特征分析及信息化技术应用研究. 公路. 2022(09): 284-291 .
| |
| 4. |
李姣，姜金钟，杨晶琼. 2017年漾濞M_S4.8和M_S5.1地震序列的微震检测及重定位. 地震学报. 2020(05): 527-542+507 .
本站查看
|
Supported by:
Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co., Ltd.
DownLoad: