基于数据驱动模型的2025年1月7日西藏定日6.8级地震参数快速估算

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2025.03.20250014

地震地质 ›› 2025, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (3): 969-983.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2025.03.20250014

基于数据驱动模型的2025年1月7日西藏定日6.8级地震参数快速估算

赵庆旭¹⁾(), 荣棉水¹⁾^,^*(), 张斌²⁾, 王继鑫²⁾, 孔小山¹⁾, 李小军¹⁾

1)北京工业大学, 城市与工程安全减灾教育部重点实验室, 北京 100124
2)中国地震局地震预测研究所, 地震预测与风险评估应急管理部重点实验室, 北京 100036

收稿日期:2025-01-23 修回日期:2025-02-21 出版日期:2025-06-20 发布日期:2025-08-13
通讯作者: *荣棉水, 男, 1982年生, 教授, 主要从事强震和环境振动作用下的场地效应研究, E-mail: rongmianshui@bjut.edu.cn。
作者简介:
赵庆旭, 男, 1997年生, 现为北京工业大学建筑工程学院土木工程专业在读博士研究生, 主要从事人工智能在地震动场地效应中的应用研究, E-mail: QingxuZhao@emails.bjut.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2023YFC3007401); 北京工业大学重点实验室项目(2023)

RAPID ESTIMATION OF PARAMETERS FOR THE M6.8 EARTH-QUAKE ON JANUARY 7, 2025 IN DINGRI(XIZANG, CHINA) BASED ON DATA-DRIVEN METHODS

ZHAO Qing-xu¹⁾(), RONG Mian-shui¹⁾^,^*(), ZHANG Bin²⁾, WANG Ji-xin²⁾, KONG Xiao-shan¹⁾, LI Xiao-jun¹⁾

1)Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of China Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
2)Key Laboratory of Earthquake Forecasting and Risk Assessment, Ministry of Emergency Management, Institute of Earthquake Forecasting, Beijing 100036, China

Received:2025-01-23 Revised:2025-02-21 Online:2025-06-20 Published:2025-08-13

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

2025年1月7日, 西藏藏族自治区日喀则市定日县发生6.8级地震, 造成了人员伤亡和严重的财产损失, 快速准确地估算地震震级、仪器烈度及地震动参数对于地震应急与减灾具有重要意义。文中基于快速估算地震震级与仪器烈度模型SeismNet和快速估算地震动参数模型CRAQuake对定日6.8级地震的震级、仪器烈度和地震动参数进行了并行估算和分析, 并验证模型性能和积累震例经验。研究结果如下: 1)在输入3s地震波时, SeismNet即可估算震级的平均值为6.17级, 且随着地震波时长的增加, 估算震级的平均值与编目震级逐渐接近; 2)在仪器烈度估算方面, 当SeismNet输入8~10s的地震波时, 能够输出与烈度速报比较一致的结果, 且输入6s及以上地震波时, 无误报或漏报现象; 3)CRAQuake估算的地震动参数与观测值具有较好的吻合度, 能够在数秒内给出相对可靠的结果。这些结果表明, 基于数据驱动的估算模型在本次地震中表现出优异的性能, 具有较强的泛化能力, 显著提升了地震应急响应的效率与准确性。文中的研究成果为后续应急管理提供了重要的参考依据和技术支持, 同时也表明数据驱动方法能为大地震应急提供有价值的评价结果和重要的参考依据。

关键词: 定日6.8级地震, 数据驱动模型, 震级, 仪器烈度, 地震动参数

Abstract:

On January 7, 2025, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck Dingri County, Shigatse City, Xizang, China, causing significant casualties and property damage. Rapid and accurate estimation of earthquake magnitude, instrumental intensity, and ground motion parameters is essential for seismic hazard assessment and emergency response. Magnitude, as a key indicator of the energy released by an earthquake, lays the foundation for preliminary disaster assessment. Instrumental intensity, calculated from the intensity of ground motion observed by instruments, can be used directly to determine the extent of damage and the severity of disasters. Ground motion parameters, such as PGA and PGV, are widely used in seismic design, disaster assessment, and seismic damage prediction and are important metrics for evaluating the impact of earthquakes on buildings and infrastructure.

In this study, a data-driven multi-task joint estimation framework is proposed that combines the SeismNet model for rapid magnitude and instrumental intensity estimation with the CRAQuake model for rapid estimation of ground shaking parameters. The framework is applied to the January 7, 2025, Dingri earthquake of magnitude 6.8, where the magnitude, instrumental intensity, and ground motion parameters are estimated and analyzed in parallel. The study starts by filtering and processing the strong motion data obtained, and then estimates the magnitude, instrumental intensity, and ground motion parameters by parallel computation. The results show that: 1)The estimated magnitude provided by SeismNet is 6.17 when the seismic data are input for 3s. With the increase in seismic wave duration, the estimated magnitude gradually approaches the catalog value, and the estimated magnitude is 6.71 at 7 seconds, with a significant reduction in the error. 2)For the instrumental intensity estimation, the results obtained by SeismNet are the same as those of the instrumental intensity flash report when the seismic data are input for 8 to 10 seconds. When data of 6 seconds or longer were used, there were no false alarms or omissions, showing a high degree of accuracy. 3)The estimates of ground-motion parameters provided by the CRAQuake model are in good agreement with observations, providing reliable results within a few seconds, especially for PGA, PGV, and other parameters, with minor and stable errors.

These results indicate that the data-driven estimation model exhibits strong generalization ability in the Dingri earthquake, particularly in the epicenter region and the early post-earthquake period, providing fast and reliable decision support. With the increase of seismic wave duration, the estimation results of SeismNet and CRAQuake are more stable, the errors are gradually reduced, and the estimation accuracy is significantly improved. Through parallel computing, these two models can estimate multiple seismic parameters at the same time, which not only enhances the estimation efficiency, but also provides efficient and comprehensive technical support for earthquake emergency response. Additionally, data-driven methods offer significant advantages in earthquake emergency response, particularly in large-scale earthquake disasters. These methods can quickly estimate magnitude, instrumental intensity, and ground motion parameters, providing more accurate decision support. The results offer new technical insights and methodological support for future large-scale earthquake emergency response and lay the foundation for the widespread application of data-driven methods in the earthquake field.

Key words: Dingri M6.8 earthquake, data-driven models, magnitude, instrumental intensity, ground motion parameters

赵庆旭, 荣棉水, 张斌, 王继鑫, 孔小山, 李小军. 基于数据驱动模型的2025年1月7日西藏定日6.8级地震参数快速估算[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 969-983.

ZHAO Qing-xu, RONG Mian-shui, ZHANG Bin, WANG Ji-xin, KONG Xiao-shan, LI Xiao-jun. RAPID ESTIMATION OF PARAMETERS FOR THE M6.8 EARTH-QUAKE ON JANUARY 7, 2025 IN DINGRI(XIZANG, CHINA) BASED ON DATA-DRIVEN METHODS[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2025, 47(3): 969-983.

图/表 12

图1 a 加速度峰值与震源距的关系; b 主震震中及选用台站的分布图a中的虚线表示200km的震源距

Fig. 1 Relationship between PGA and hypocentral distance(a)and distribution of the mainshock epicenter and selected stations(b).

表1 选用台站的基本信息

Table 1 Basic information of selected stations

台站名称	仪器类型	北纬/(°)	东经/(°)	震源距/km	P波到时/s
DB001	强震仪	29.10	89.20	183.60	57.59
DS002	强震仪	28.90	88.00	70.38	36.61
DX001	强震仪	29.44	88.20	127.66	46.45
RKZ	强震仪	29.26	88.80	156.65	52.65
D0001	烈度仪	29.30	87.20	92.50	40.80
D0003	烈度仪	30.07	86.90	182.31	58.26
D0004	烈度仪	28.37	87.70	30.12	31.52
D0005	烈度仪	28.24	88.40	97.99	42.14
D0007	烈度仪	29.09	87.60	67.75	35.78
D0009	烈度仪	29.68	89.00	199.94	58.61

图2 震源距最小和PGA最大台站的加速度波形及P波到时第1行为强震仪DS002, 第2行为烈度仪D0004, 第3行为烈度仪D0007, 虚线表示P波到时

Fig. 2 Acceleration waveforms and P-wave arrival times of stations with minimum hypocentral distance and maximum PGA.

图3 震源距最小和PGA最大台站的加速度反应谱

Fig. 3 Acceleration response spectra of stations with minimum hypocentral distance and maximum PGA.

表2 选用台站的仪器烈度和地震动参数

Table2 Instrumental intensity and ground motion parameters of selected stations

台站名称	仪器烈度 (速报结果)	仪器烈度 (本文计算结果)	PGA /cm·s^-2	PGV /cm·s^-1	PGD /cm	SA(0.3) /cm·s^-2	SA(1.0) /cm·s^-2	SA(3.0) /cm·s^-2
DB001	2.9	2.90	3.14	1.34	0.87	6.34	4.11	7.45
DS002	5.5	5.54	40.30	3.64	2.18	124.01	20.35	12.53
DX001	4.8	4.83	17.32	4.11	3.53	39.55	10.31	8.53
RKZ	3.6	3.61	4.30	2.51	1.82	7.97	8.35	9.73
D0001	6.1	6.10	62.59	6.79	5.81	125.47	51.87	16.06
D0003	4.2	4.24	7.39	4.55	3.71	17.51	12.31	9.77
D0004	7.3	7.28	114.76	14.86	5.21	285.08	170.17	28.06
D0005	4.6	4.62	20.72	2.24	1.45	59.53	7.81	7.01
D0007	8.0	8.02	396.02	28.29	8.29	1066.71	277.97	79.00
D0009	4.1	4.09	16.27	1.29	1.00	68.47	6.52	5.11

图4 震级、仪器烈度和地震动参数的快速估算示意

Fig. 4 Schematic of rapid estimation of magnitude, instrumental intensity, and ground motion parameters.

图5 SeismNet估算定日6.8级地震震级的结果 a 估算震级平均值随地震波时长的变化; b 估算震级误差随地震波时长的变化

Fig. 5 Results of SeismNet estimation of magnitude for Dingri M6.8 earthquake.

图6 定日6.8级地震仪器烈度分布图(引自中国地震局工程力学研究所强震动观测中心)

Fig. 6 Distribution map of instrumental intensity for the Dingri M6.8 earthquake(Cited from the Strong Motion Observation Center, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration).

图7 SeismNet估算定日6.8级地震仪器烈度结果(3s, 5s, 8s, 10s)

Fig. 7 SeismNet estimated instrumental intensity results for the M6.8 Dingri earthquake(3s, 5s, 8s, 10s).

图8 SeismNet估算定日6.8级地震仪器烈度的阈值判断结果

Fig. 8 Threshold determination results of instrumental Intensity for Dingri M6.8 earthquake estimated by SeismNet.

图9 CRAQuake输入3s地震波时估算定日6.8级地震地震动参数的结果

Fig. 9 Results of ground motion parameter estimation for Dingri M6.8 earthquake using CRAQuake with 3s seismic wave input.

图10 不同地震波时长CRAQuake估算定日6.8级地震地震动参数的结果

Fig. 10 Results of ground motion parameter estimation for Dingri M6.8 earthquake using CRAQuake with different seismic wave durations.

参考文献 37

[1]	金星. 2024. 地震预警与烈度速报-风险与控制[M]. 北京: 科学出版社.
	JIN Xing. 2024. Earthquake Early Warning and Intensity Rapid Reporting: Risks and Control[M]. Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[2]	金星, 张红才, 李军, 等. 2012. 地震预警震级确定方法研究[J]. 地震学报, 34(5): 593-610.
	JIN Xing, ZHANG Hong-cai, LI Jun, et al. 2012. Research on earthquake early warning magnitude estimate[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 34(5): 593-610 (in Chinese).
[3]	刘辰, 李小军, 景冰冰, 等. 2019. 地震预警PGV-Pd关系参数的距离分段特征[J]. 地球物理学报, 62(4): 1413-1426. DOI
	LIU Chen, LI Xiao-jun, JING Bin-bin, et al. 2019. The distance segmentation characters of PGV-Pd relationship parameters for earthquake early warning[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(4): 1413-1426 (in Chinese).
[4]	马美帅, 王延伟, 汪祚赚, 等. 2022. 基于累积绝对位移值的震级估算方法[J]. 自然灾害学报, 31(2): 93-101.
	MA Mei-shuai, WANG Yan-wei, WANG Zuo-zhuan, et al. 2022. Magnitude estimation based on the cumulative absolute displacement[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 31(2): 93-101 (in Chinese).
[5]	赵庆旭, 王延伟, 莫红艳, 等. 2024. 基于多输入高斯过程回归的震级快速估算方法[J]. 地震学报, 46(5): 806-824.
	ZHAO Qing-xu, WANG Yan-wei, MO Hong-yan, et al. 2024. Rapid magnitude estimation based on multi-input Gaussian process regression[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 46(5): 806-824 (in Chinese).
[6]	中国地震局. 2020. 中国地震烈度表GB/T 17742-2020[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社.
	China Earthquake Administration. 2020. The Chinese seismic intensity scale, GB/T 17742-2020[S]. Standards Press of China, Beijing (in Chinese).
[7]	Allen R, Kanamori H. 2003. The Potential for earthquake early warning in southern California[J]. Science, 300(5620): 786-789. doi: 10.1126/science.1080912. PMID
[8]	Bindi D, Pacor F, Puglia R, et al. 2011. Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database[J]. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(6): 1899-1920. doi: 10.1007/s10518-011-9313-z.
[9]	Campbell K, Bozorgnia Y. 2008. NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10s[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1): 139-171. doi: 10.1193/1.2857546.
[10]	Campbell K, Bozorgnia Y. 2011. A ground motion prediction equation for JMA instrumental seismic intensity for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regimes[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40(4): 413-427. doi: 10.1002/eqe.1027.
[11]	Campbell K, Bozorgnia Y. 2014. NGA-West 2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 30(3): 1087-1115. doi: 10.1193/062913EQS175M.
[12]	Dai H Z, Zhou Y Y, Liu H Y, et al. 2024. XGBoost-based prediction of on-site acceleration response spectra with multi-feature inputs from P-wave arrivals[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 178:108503. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108503.
[13]	Festa G, Zollo A, Vesuviano I. 2008. Magnitude estimation from early radiated energy[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(22): L22307. doi: 10.1029/2008GL035576.
[14]	Hu J J, Ding Y T, Zhang H, et al. 2023. A Real-time seismic intensity prediction framework based on interpretable ensemble learning[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 94(3): 1579-1602. doi: 10.1785/0220220167.
[15]	Ide S. 2019. Frequent observations of identical onsets of large and small earthquakes[J]. Nature, 573(7772): 112-116. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1508-5.
[16]	Kale Ö, Akkar S, Anasri A, et al. 2015. A ground-motion predictive model for Iran and Turkey for horizontal PGA, PGV, and 5% damped response spectrum: Investigation of possible regional effects[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 105(2A): 963-980. doi: 10.1785/0120140134.
[17]	Kanamori H. 2005. Real-time seismology and earthquake damage mitigation[J]. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33(1): 195-214. doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.33.092203.122626.
[18]	Karim K, Yamazaki F. 2002. Correlation of JMA instrumental seismic intensity with strong motion parameters[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(5): 1191-1212. doi: 10.1002/eqe.158.
[19]	Olson E, Allen R. 2005. The deterministic nature of earthquake rupture[J]. Nature, 438(7065): 212-215. doi: 10.1038/nature04214.
[20]	Peng C Y, Yang J S, Xue B, et al. 2013. Exploring the feasibility of earthquake early warning using records of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and its aftershocks[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 57:86-93. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.11.005.
[21]	Peng C Y, Yang J S, Zheng Y, et al. 2017. New τ_c regression relationship derived from all P-wave time windows for rapid magnitude estimation[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(4): 1724-1731. doi: 10.1002/2016GL071672.
[22]	Shieh J, Wu Y, Allen R. 2008. A comparison of τ_c and τ^p_max for magnitude estimation in earthquake early warning[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(20): L20301. doi: 10.1029/2008GL035611.
[23]	Wald J, Quitoriano V, Heaton T H, et al. 1999. Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and modified mercalli intensity in California[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 15(3): 557-564. doi: 10.1193/1.1586058.
[24]	Wang Y W, Li X J, Li L, et al. 2021. New magnitude proxy for earthquake early warning based on initial time series and frequency[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 93(1): 216-225. doi: 10.1785/0220210106.
[25]	Wang Y W, Li X J, Wang Z F, et al. 2022. Deep learning for magnitude prediction in earthquake early warning[J]. Gondwana Research, 123:164-173. doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2022.06.009.
[26]	Wu Y, Kanamori H. 2005. Rapid assessment of damage potential of earthquakes in Taiwan from the beginning of P waves[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(3): 1181-1185. doi: 10.1785/0120040193.
[27]	Wu Y, Kanamori H. 2008. Exploring the feasibility of on-site earthquake early warning using close-in records of the 2007 Noto Hanto earthquake[J]. Earth Planets and Space, 60:155-160. doi: 10.1186/BF03352778.
[28]	Wu Y, Kanamori H, Allen R, et al. 2007. Determination of earthquake early warning parameters, τ_c and P_d, for southern California[J]. Geophysical Journal International, 170(2): 711-717. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03430.x.
[29]	Wu Y, Zhao L. 2006. Magnitude estimation using the first three second P-wave amplitude in earthquake early warning[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 331(16): L16312. doi: 10.1029/2006GL026871.
[30]	Zhang B, Yu Y X, Li X J, et al. 2021. Ground motion attenuation relationship of horizontal component of PGV and PGD in southwest China[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(8): 2733-2748.
[31]	Zhang B, Yu Y X, Li X J, et al. 2022. Ground motion prediction equation for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%damped acceleration response spectra at periods ranging from 0.033 to 8.0s in southwest China[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 159:107297. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107297.
[32]	Zhang H C, Jin X, Wei Y X, et al. 2016. An earthquake early warning system in Fujian, China[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 106(2): 755-765. doi: 10.1785/0120150143.
[33]	Zhao Q X, Rong M S, Wang J X, et al. 2024a. An end-to-end multi-task network for early prediction of the instrumental intensity and magnitude in the north-south seismic belt of China[J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 276:106369. doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2024.106369.
[34]	Zhao Q X, Rong M S, Zhang B, et al. 2024b. An All-in-one rapid prediction of ground motion intensity measures hybrid network for multi-task in the North-South seismic belt of China[J]. Earth and Space Science, 11(10): e2024EA003664. doi: 10.1029/2024EA003664.
[35]	Zhu J B, Li S Y, Song J D. 2022. Magnitude estimation for earthquake early warning with multiple parameter inputs and a support vector machine[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 93(1): 126-136. doi: 10.1785/0220210144.
[36]	Ziv A. 2014. New frequency-based real-time magnitude proxy for earthquake early warning[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(20): 7035-7040. doi: 10.1002/2014GL061564.
[37]	Zollo A, Amoroso O, Lancieri M, et al. 2010. A Threshold-based earthquake early warning using dense accelerometer networks[J]. Geophysical Journal International, 183(2): 963-974. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04765.x.

基于数据驱动模型的2025年1月7日西藏定日6.8级地震参数快速估算

RAPID ESTIMATION OF PARAMETERS FOR THE M6.8 EARTH-QUAKE ON JANUARY 7, 2025 IN DINGRI(XIZANG, CHINA) BASED ON DATA-DRIVEN METHODS

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 37

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王度, 陈立春, 李彦宝, 王虎, 贾永顺, 高茵怡, 薛柯依. 藏南申扎-定结裂谷系谢通门-登么错段晚第四纪活动特征[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 718-733.
[2]	吴晓菲, 孟令媛. 2025年1月7日西藏定日6.8级地震序列特征及烈度比较分析[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 869-880.
[3]	梁明剑, 董芸希, 左洪, 代友林, 肖本夫, 廖程, 谭凌, 王余伟, 李响, 汤才成, 张威, 张会平, 孟令媛, 苏金蓉, 吴微微, 李传友, 严媚. 2025年西藏定日6.8级地震登么错段地表变形特征及其成因[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(1): 80-89.
[4]	孟睿, 张远帆, 谢霄峰, 聂志喜, 王振杰, 单新建. 基于强震动记录的震级快速估算方法[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(5): 1219-1232.
[5]	姚文倩, 王子君, 刘静, 刘小利, 韩龙飞, 邵延秀, 王文鑫, 徐晶, 秦可心, 高云鹏, 王焱, 李金阳, 曾宪阳. 2021年青海玛多M_W7.4地震同震地表破裂长度的讨论[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(2): 541-559.
[6]	祁玉萍, 龙锋, 林圣杰, 肖本夫, 赵小艳, 王培玲, 冯建刚. 南北地震带中段及周边中强地震序列类型的特征[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(1): 177-196.
[7]	谢卓娟, 李山有, 吕悦军, 徐伟进, 张愉玲, 刘雯歆. 中国海域及邻区统一地震目录及其完整性分析[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(4): 993-1019.
[8]	吴果, 周庆, 冉洪流. 震级-频度关系中b值的极大似然法估计及其影响因素分析[J]. 地震地质, 2019, 41(1): 21-43.
[9]	徐锡伟, 吴熙彦, 于贵华, 谭锡斌, 李康. 中国大陆高震级地震危险区判定的地震地质学标志及其应用[J]. 地震地质, 2017, 39(2): 219-275.
[10]	吴微微, 苏金蓉, 魏娅玲, 吴朋, 李俊, 孙玮. 四川地区介质衰减、场地响应与震级测定的讨论[J]. 地震地质, 2016, 38(4): 1005-1018.
[11]	吴富峣, 冉勇康, 陈立春, 李安. 东天山三条地震地表破裂带的展布及其与两次历史地震的关系[J]. 地震地质, 2016, 38(1): 77-90.
[12]	唐茂云, 刘静, 邵延秀, 王鹏, 袁兆德. 中小震级事件产生地表破裂的震例分析[J]. 地震地质, 2015, 37(4): 1193-1214.
[13]	陈鲲, 俞言祥, 高孟潭, 亢川川. 中国西部地区利用烈度数据估计地震动参数的方法[J]. 地震地质, 2014, 36(4): 1043-1052.
[14]	冯蔚, 姜立新, 杨天青, 李洋, 郑通彦. 芦山7.0级地震强震台仪器烈度与调查点烈度的对比分析[J]. 地震地质, 2014, 36(1): 222-229.
[15]	盛书中, 万永革, 徐志国, 卜玉菲, 武晔, 李迎秋. 由地震释放的地震矩叠加推导平均应力场[J]. 地震地质, 2013, 35(1): 92-100.