基于两步随机经验格林函数方法模拟漾濞<i>M</i><sub>S</sub>6.5地震的地震动

吉祥; 王宏伟; 任叶飞; 温瑞智

doi:10.11899/zzfy20250057

基于两步随机经验格林函数方法模拟漾濞M_S6.5地震的地震动

doi: 10.11899/zzfy20250057

吉祥^{1, 2,},
王宏伟^{1, 2, ,},
任叶飞^{1, 2},
温瑞智^{1, 2}

1.
中国地震局工程力学研究所, 地震工程与工程震动重点实验室, 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: 国家重点研发计划项目课题（2022 YFC3003601）；国家自然科学基金项目（U2239252、52478567）

详细信息

作者简介:
吉祥，男，生于1999年。硕士研究生。主要从事地震动模拟方面的研究工作。E-mail：jx19991114@163.com

通讯作者:
王宏伟，男，生于1990年。副研究员。主要从事地震动特征及模拟方面的研究工作。E-mail：whw1990413@163.com

中图分类号: P315.9
计量
- 文章访问数: 104
- HTML全文浏览量: 7
- PDF下载量: 154
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2025-04-03
- 录用日期: 2025-06-09
- 修回日期: 2025-05-26
- 网络出版日期: 2026-05-08

Ground Motion Simulation for the Yangbi Earthquake by the Two-Step Stochastic Empirical Green’s Function Method

Ji Xiang^{1, 2
,},
Wang Hongwei^{1, 2
, ,},
Ren Yefei^{1, 2},
Wen Ruizhi^{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, Harbin150080, China

摘要

摘要: 两步随机经验格林函数法不需要依赖震源破裂过程的运动学描述，在目标地震的地震动模拟中具有显著优势。本文采用两步随机经验格林函数方法模拟漾濞M_S6.5地震的地震动，选取漾濞地震中的9次小震的观测记录作为经验格林函数（EGF），重点探讨了EGF选取、小地震或目标地震的震源破裂方向性、地震应力降对模拟结果的影响，得到以下EGF选取对模拟结果有明显影响，选取不同EGF时目标地震同台站模拟记录的标准差接近于小地震的事件间标准差，体现了小地震的震源效应在模拟地震动中映射；单次小地震的观测记录作为EGF时，模拟记录的不确定性反映了与传播路径相关的地震动的不确定性，说明EGF方法给出的模拟记录能很好地体现地震动的传播路径效应；模拟中应重视地震的应力降和地震的破裂方向性效应，应力降的偏差会造成模拟记录系统性偏差，震源破裂方向性会在很大程度上影响模拟结果的空间分布特征。
- 漾濞地震 /
- 经验格林函数 /
- 地震动模拟 /
- 应力降 /
- 破裂方向性
Abstract: The two-step stochastic Empirical Green’s Function method does not rely on kinematic descriptions of source rupture processes, offering significant advantages in simulating ground motions for target earthquakes. The two-step stochastic empirical Green's function (EGF) method was used for the ground-motion simulation of Yangbi M_S6.5 earthquake. The observed ground-motion recordings during nine small earthquakes in the Yangbi seismic sequence were selected as EGFs. We focused on investigating the impacts of EGF selection, rupture directivity of small or target earthquakes, and stress drop on the simulation results. The following conclusions were drawn: 1) EGF selection significantly influences simulation results. When different EGFs are selected, the standard deviation of simulated records for the target earthquake at the same station approximates the inter-event standard deviation of small earthquakes, reflecting the mapping of source effects from small earthquakes into simulated ground motions; 2) When observed recordings from a single small earthquake are used as EGFs, the uncertainty in simulated records reflects the variability in ground motions related to propagation paths. This demonstrates that the EGF method effectively captures path effects in simulated ground motions; 3) Stress drop and rupture directivity effects must be carefully considered in simulations. Deviations in stress drop cause systematic errors in simulated recordings, while the source rupture directivity is capable of affecting the spatial distribution characteristics of simulated ground motions.
- Yangbi earthquake /
- Empirical Green's function /
- Ground motion simulation /
- Stress drop /
- Rupture directivity

HTML全文

图 1 地震及台站空间分布

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of stations, and earthquake events

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 模拟记录PGA残差每张小图上补充横纵坐标含义/单位

Figure 2. Residual of PGA for the simulation

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 模拟记录PSA残差

Figure 3. Residual of PSA for the simulation

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 模拟记录PGA、PSA残差的标准差

Figure 4. The standard deviation of residuals of PGAs, PSAs for the simulations

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 EQ3观测记录作为EGF时漾濞主震模拟记录PGA以及周期0.1 、0.3 s的PSA与观测值的对比

Figure 5. Comparisons of the PGAs and PSAs at periods of 0.1 and 0.3 s for the simulated results with observed recordings from EQ3 as EGFs with the observed ones

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 EQ4观测记录作为EGF时漾濞主震模拟记录加速度时程与观测记录的对比

Figure 6. Comparisons of the acceleration time histories for the simulations with observed recordings from EQ4 as EGFs with the observed ones

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 选用不同EGF给出的目标地震中同台站模拟记录PGA、PSA差异采用物理量/单位形式表达

Figure 7. PGAs and PSAs of the simulated results at single station based on the various EGFs

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 PGA和PSA残差-方位角关系图像

Figure 8. Relationship Image between PGA, PSA residuals and azimuth angle

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 漾濞主震和小地震的基本信息

Table 1. Basic information of the mainshock and small earthquakes as EGFs in the Yangbi earthquake sequence

地震	发震时间	震级/M_W	震中		震源深度/km	震源机制解			EGF数量
地震	发震时间	震级/M_W	北纬/（°）	东经/（°）	震源深度/km	走向/（°）	倾角/（°）	滑动角/（°）	EGF数量
漾濞主震	2021/05/21	6	25.689	99.869	8.8	143	80	−165	/
漾濞主震	21:48:34	6	25.689	99.869	8.8	143	80	−165	/
EQ1	2021/05/18	3.8	25.632	99.925	13	136	85	−165	17
EQ1	18:49:30	3.8	25.632	99.925	13	136	85	−165	17
EQ2	2021/05/18	3.6	25.636	99.925	13.3	132	85	−160	10
EQ2	20:56:46	3.6	25.636	99.925	13.3	132	85	−160	10
EQ3	2021/05/18	4.3	25.634	99.925	14.1	307	81	160	43
EQ3	21:39:35	4.3	25.634	99.925	14.1	307	81	160	43
EQ4	2021/05/19	3.8	25.634	99.922	13.5	314	75	175	8
EQ4	3:27:56	3.8	25.634	99.922	13.5	314	75	175	8
EQ5	2021/05/19	4.6	25.643	99.912	14.2	315	70	180	49
EQ5	20:05:56	4.6	25.643	99.912	14.2	315	70	180	49
EQ6	2021/05/21	4.4	25.573	99.929	11.8	139	70	−169	24
EQ6	22:02:00	4.4	25.573	99.929	11.8	139	70	−169	24
EQ7	2021/05/21	3.7	25.634	99.999	12.7	130	71	−164	14
EQ7	23:18:09	3.7	25.634	99.999	12.7	130	71	−164	14
EQ8	2021/05/22	4.2	25.708	99.897	11.9	126	75	−175	31
EQ8	00:51:41	4.2	25.708	99.897	11.9	126	75	−175	31
EQ9	2021/05/22	3.9	25.654	99.895	13.3	315	90	180	15
EQ9	17:24:16	3.9	25.654	99.895	13.3	315	90	180	15

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(45)

巴振宁, 刘悦, 赵靖轩等, 2023. 2021年漾濞6.4级近断层宽频地震动模拟: 一种改进的FK方法. 岩土工程学报, 45(4): 709−719.

Ba Z. N., Liu Y., Zhao J. X., et al., 2023. Near-fault broadband ground-motion simulation of 2021 Yangbi M_S6.4 earthquake: an improved FK Method. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 45(4): 709−719. (in Chinese)

段梦乔, 赵翠萍, 周连庆等, 2021. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞M_S6.4地震序列发震构造. 地球物理学报, 64(9): 3111−3125.

Duan M. Q., Zhao C. P., Zhou L. Q., et al., 2021. Seismogenic structure of the 21 May 2021 M_S6.4 Yunnan Yangbi earthquake sequence. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(9): 3111−3125. (in Chinese)

纪志伟, 陈学良, 张波, 2022. 漾濞M_S6.4地震长周期强地震动的有限差分初步模拟. 地球与行星物理论评, 53(1): 85−91. doi: 10.19975/j.dqyxx.2021-039

Ji Z. W., Chen X. L., Zhang B., 2022. Preliminary finite difference simulation of long-period strong ground motions for the Yangbi M_S6.4 earthquake. Reviews of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, 53(1): 85−91. (in Chinese) doi: 10.19975/j.dqyxx.2021-039

雷兴林, 王志伟, 马胜利等, 2021. 关于2021年5月滇西漾濞M_S6.4地震序列特征及成因的初步研究. 地震学报, 43(3): 261−286.

Lei X. L., Wang Z. W., Ma S. L., et al., 2021. A preliminary study on the characteristics and mechanism of the May 2021 M_S6.4 Yangbi earthquake sequence, Yunnan, China. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 43(3): 261−286. (in Chinese)

李大虎, 丁志峰, 吴萍萍等, 2021. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞M_S6.4地震震区地壳结构特征与孕震背景. 地球物理学报, 64(9): 3083−3100.

Li D. H., Ding Z. F., Wu P. P., et al., 2021. The characteristics of crustal structure and seismogenic background of Yangbi M_S6.4 earthquake on May 21, 2021 in Yunnan Province, China. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(9): 3083−3100. (in Chinese)

李宗超, 高孟潭, 陈学良等, 2019. 九寨沟M_S7.0地震强地震动模拟及漳扎镇地震动强度预测. 地球物理学报, 62(7): 2567−2581.

Li Z. C., Gao M. T., Chen X. L., et al., 2019. Simulation of ground motion by the 2017 Jiuzhaigou M_S7.0 earthquake and estimation of ground motion intensity in the Zhangzha Town. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(7): 2567−2581. (in Chinese)

李宗超, 高孟潭, 孙吉泽等, 2022. 海域俯冲带高频地震动模拟−−以2021年2月13日日本福岛M_S7.1地震为例. 震灾防御技术, 17(3): 516−528.

Li Z. C., Gao M. T., Sun J. Z., et al., 2022. Simulation of high-frequency ground motions in the subduction zone of the sea area−taking the Fukushima M_S7.1 earthquake on February 13, 2021 as an example. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, 17(3): 516−528. (in Chinese)

李宗超, 纪志伟, 孙吉泽等, 2025. 基于安徽合肥M_S4.7地震快速估计本地区M_S6.0设定地震加速度时程及其破坏能力. 地球与行星物理论评(中英文), 56(3): 338−351.

Li Z. C., Ji Z. W., Sun J. Z., et al., 2025. Rapid estimation of M_S6.0 scenario earthquake acceleration waveform and its destructive capacity in local area based on the M_S4.7 earthquake in Anhui Province. Reviews of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, 56(3): 338−351. (in Chinese)

刘峥, 徐永林, 胡俊等, 2016. 合成的台湾M_S8.0级大震在上海产生的地震动. 震灾防御技术, 11(2): 360−366.

Liu Z., Xu Y. L., Hu J., et al., 2016. The estimated value of ground surface wave in Shanghai by synthesizing Taiwan M_S8.0 earthquake with empirical green's function. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, 11(2): 360−366. (in Chinese)

龙锋, 祁玉萍, 易桂喜等, 2021. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞M_S6.4地震序列重新定位与发震构造分析. 地球物理学报, 64(8): 2631−2646.

Long F., Qi Y. P., Yi G. X., et al., 2021. Relocation of the M_S6.4 Yangbi earthquake sequence on May 21, 2021 in Yunnan Province and its seismogenic structure analysis. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(8): 2631−2646. (in Chinese)

强生银, 王宏伟, 温瑞智等, 2021. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞M_S6.4地震随机有限断层三维地震动模拟. 地球物理学报, 64(12): 4538−4547.

Qiang S. Y., Wang H. W., Wen R. Z., et al., 2021. Three-dimensional ground motion simulations by the stochastic finite-fault method for the Yangbi, Yunnan M_S6.4 earthquake on May 21, 2021. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(12): 4538−4547. (in Chinese)

王宏伟, 2017. 地震动模拟的两步随机经验格林函数方法研究. 哈尔滨: 中国地震局工程力学研究所.

Wang H. W. , 2017. Study on the two-stage stochastic empirical green's function method for ground motion simulation. Harbin: Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration. (in Chinese)

吴浩, 入倉孝次郎, 林国良, 2023. 基于经验格林函数法的2021年M_S6.4漾濞地震近场强震动模拟. 地震地质, 45(4): 864−879.

Wu H., Irikura K., Lin G. L., 2023. The empirical green's function-based simulation of near-field strong ground motions of the 2021 Yangbi earthquake (M_S6.4), Yunnan, China. Seismology and Geology, 45(4): 864−879. (in Chinese)

席桂梅, 郭雷, 何书耕等, 2019. 用改进的经验格林函数方法模拟唐山地震动. 震灾防御技术, 14(1): 97−107.

Xi G. M., Guo L., He S. G., et al., 2019. Ground motion simulations of Tangshan with improved empirical green's function. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, 14(1): 97−107. (in Chinese)

杨九元, 温扬茂, 许才军, 2021. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞M_S6.4地震: 一次破裂在隐伏断层上的浅源走滑事件. 地球物理学报, 64(9): 3101−3110.

Yang J. Y., Wen Y. M., Xu C. J., 2021. The 21 May 2021 M_S6.4 Yangbi (Yunnan) earthquake: a shallow strike-slip event rupturing in a blind fault. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(9): 3101−3110. (in Chinese)

杨苗, 王宏伟, 温瑞智等, 2023. 2021年漾濞地震序列破裂方向性研究. 地震学报, 45(5): 836−848.

Yang M., Wang H. W., Wen R. Z., et al., 2023. Study on the rupture directivity of the 2021 Yangbi earthquake sequence. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 45(5): 836−848. (in Chinese)

杨云存, 王华柳, 段毅等, 2021. 云南漾濞M6.4地震震源机制解分析. 四川地震, (4): 12−17.

Yang Y. C., Wang H. L., Duan Y., et al., 2021. Focal mechanism solution of the M6.4 Yangbi earthquake in Yunnan. Earthquake Research in Sichuan, (4): 12−17. (in Chinese)

姚鑫鑫, 任叶飞, 岸田忠大等, 2025. 满足数据同一性的强震动记录去噪滤波后处理输出方法. 工程力学, 42(1): 152−163.

Yao X. X., Ren Y. F., Kishida T., et al., 2025. A post processing method of strong motion record filtering satisfying the compatibility. Engineering Mechanics, 42(1): 152−163. (in Chinese)

张斌, 李小军, 林国良等, 2021. 2021年5月21日漾濞M_S6.4地震近场地震动特征和方向性效应分析. 地球物理学报, 64(10): 3619−3631.

Zhang B., Li X. J., Lin G. L., et al., 2021. Analysis of strong ground motion characteristics and directivity effect in the near-field for the May 21, 2021 M_S6.4 Yangbi earthquake. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(10): 3619−3631. (in Chinese)

赵博, 高原, 马延路, 2022. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞M_S6.4地震序列重新定位、震源机制及应力场反演. 地球物理学报, 65(3): 1006−1020.

Zhao B., Gao Y., Ma Y. L., 2022. Relocations, focal mechanisms and stress inversion of the May 21th 2021 Yangbi M_S6.4 earthquake sequence in Yunnan, China. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 65(3): 1006−1020. (in Chinese)

Allmann B. P., Shearer P. M., 2009. Global variations of stress drop for moderate to large earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 114(B1): B01310.

Beauval C., Honoré L., Courboulex F., 2009. Ground-motion variability and implementation of a probabilistic–deterministic hazard method. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99(5): 2992−3002.

Boyd O. S., McNamara D. E., Hartzell S., et al., 2017. Influence of lithostatic stress on earthquake stress drops in North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(2): 856−868.

Brune J. N., 1970. Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75(26): 4997−5009.

Courboulex F., Converset J., Balestra J., et al., 2010. Ground-motion simulations of the 2004 M_w6.4 Les Saintes, Guadeloupe, earthquake using ten smaller events. Bulletin of the seismological Society of America, 100(1): 116−130.

Denolle M. A., Shearer P. M., 2016. New perspectives on self‐similarity for shallow thrust earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 121(9): 6533−6565.

Eshelby J. D. , 1957. The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 241(1226): 376−396.

Gong W. Z., Ye L. L., Qiu Y. X., et al., 2022. Rupture directivity of the 2021 M_W6.0 Yangbi, Yunnan earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(9): e2022JB024321.

Irikura K., 1983. Semi-empirical estimation of strong ground motions during large earthquakes. Bulletin of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, 33(2): 63−104.

Irikura K. , Miyakoshi K. , Kamae K. , et al. , 2017. Applicability of source scaling relations for crustal earthquakes to estimation of the ground motions of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. Earth, Planets and Space, 69(1): 10.

Joyner W. B. , Boore D. M. , 1986. On simulating large earthquakes by Green's–Function addition of smaller earthquakes. In: Das S. , Boatwright J. , Scholz C. H. , eds. , Earthquake Source Mechanics. Washington: American Geophysical Union, 269−274.

Kanamori H., Anderson D. L., 1975. Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bulletin of the seismological society of America, 65(5): 1073−1095.

Kane D. L., Kilb D. L., Vernon F. L., 2013. Selecting empirical Green’s functions in regions of fault complexity: a study of data from the San Jacinto fault zone, southern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(2A): 641−650.

Kohrs-Sansorny C., Courboulex F., Bour M., et al., 2005. A two-stage method for ground-motion simulation using stochastic summation of small earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(4): 1387−1400.

Liu M., Li H. Y., Li L., et al., 2022. Multistage nucleation of the 2021 Yangbi M_S 6.4 earthquake, Yunnan, China and its foreshocks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(5): e2022JB024091.

Ordaz M., Arboleda J., Singh S. K., 1995. A scheme of random summation of an empirical Green’s function to estimate ground motions from future large earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85(6): 1635−1647.

Pavic R., Koller M. G., Bard P. Y., et al., 2000. Ground motion prediction with the empirical Green's function technique: an assessment of uncertainties and confidence level. Journal of Seismology, 4(1): 59−77.

Qiang S. Y., Wang H. W., Wen R. Z., et al., 2023. Characteristics of strong ground motions from four M_S ≥ 5.0 earthquakes in the 2021 Yangbi, southwest China, seismic sequence. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 27(14): 3957−3974.

Salichon J., Kohrs-Sansorny C., Bertrand E., et al., 2010. A Mw 6.3 earthquake scenario in the city of Nice (southeast France): ground motion simulations. Journal of Seismology, 14(3): 523−541.

Somerville P., Irikura K., Graves R., et al., 1999. characterizing crustal earthquake slip models for the prediction of strong ground motion. Seismological Research Letters, 70(1): 59−80.

Wang H. W., Wen R. Z., Ren Y. F., 2017. Simulating ground‐motion directivity using stochastic empirical green's function method. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(1): 359−371.

Wang H. W., Ren Y. F., Wen R. Z., et al., 2019. Investigating the contribution of stress drop to ground-motion variability by simulations using the stochastic empirical Green’s function method. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176(10): 4415−4430.

Wen R. Z., Xu P. B., Wang H. W., et al., 2018. Single‐station standard deviation using strong-motion data from Sichuan region, China. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 108(4): 2237−2247.

Wennerberg L., 1990. Stochastic summation of empirical Green’s functions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 80(6A): 1418−1432.

Zhou Y. J., Ren C. M., Ghosh A., et al., 2022. Seismological characterization of the 2021 Yangbi foreshock-mainshock sequence, Yunnan, China: more than a triggered cascade. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(8): e2022JB024534.

施引文献

资源附件(0)

访问统计