基于遥感和震害仿真的2025年西藏定日6.8级地震建筑物震害对比

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2025.03.20250019

地震地质 ›› 2025, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (3): 932-948.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2025.03.20250019

基于遥感和震害仿真的2025年西藏定日6.8级地震建筑物震害对比

袁小祥¹^,²⁾(), 林旭川¹⁾^,^*(), 陈子峰¹⁾, 张建龙³⁾, 窦爱霞²⁾, 肖本夫⁴⁾, 杜浩国⁵⁾, 余思汗⁶⁾, 丁香²⁾, 方杰¹^,⁷⁾, 王书民²⁾

1)中国地震局工程力学研究所, 地震灾害防治应急管理部重点实验室, 中国地震局地震工程与工程振动重点实验室, 哈尔滨 150080
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
3)西藏自治区地震局, 拉萨 850000
4)四川省地震局, 成都 610041
5)云南地震局, 昆明 650224
6)宁夏回族自治区地震局, 银川 750001
7)中国地震局地震研究所, 武汉地震工程研究院有限公司, 武汉 430060

收稿日期:2025-01-24 修回日期:2025-03-20 出版日期:2025-06-20 发布日期:2025-08-13
通讯作者: *林旭川, 男, 1984年生, 研究员, 主要从事结构工程抗震、区域地震灾害模拟等领域研究, E-mail: linxuchuan@iem.ac.cn。
作者简介:
袁小祥, 男, 1983年生, 现为中国地震局工程力学研究所结构工程方向在读博士研究生, 副研究员, 主要从事基于多源空间信息的地震灾害信息提取、震害仿真与地震灾害风险评估等研究, E-mail: yuanxx@ief.ac.cn。
基金资助:
宁夏重点研发计划重点项目(2024BEG02033); 国家自然科学基金(42271090); 应急管理部重点科技计划项目(2024EMST050503); 中国地震局地震预测研究所地震业务科技支撑项目(CEAIEF20240508)

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON BUILDING DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE 2025 M_S6.8 EARTHQUAKE IN DINGRI, XIZANG, BASED ON REMOTE SENSING AND SEISMIC SIMULATION

YUAN Xiao-xiang¹^,²⁾(), LIN Xu-chuan¹⁾^,^*(), CHEN Zi-feng¹⁾, ZHANG Jian-long³⁾, DOU Ai-xia²⁾, XIAO Ben-fu⁴⁾, DU Hao-guo⁵⁾, YU Si-han⁶⁾, DING Xiang²⁾, FANG Jie¹^,⁷⁾, WANG Shu-min²⁾

1)Key Laboratory of Earthquake Disaster Mitigation,Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Ministry of Emergency Management, Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Harbin 150080, China
2)Key Laboratory of Earthquake Prediction and Risk Assessment Emergency Management Department, Institute of Earthquake Forecasting, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100036, China
3)Earthquake Agency of Xizang Autonomous Region, Lhsa 850000, China
4)Sichuan Earthquake Agency, Chengdu 610041, China
5)Yunnan Earthquake Agency, Kunming 650224, China
6)Earthquake Agency of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Yingchuan 750001, China
7)Wuhan Institute of Earthquake Engineering Co., Ltd., Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Wuhan 430060, China

Received:2025-01-24 Revised:2025-03-20 Online:2025-06-20 Published:2025-08-13

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 建筑物震害是破坏性地震人员致死的重要因素, 震后快速、及时获取有效的建筑物震害评估结果对应急救灾、灾情评估及结构抗震意义重大。文中以2025年1月7日西藏定日6.8级地震为例, 首先基于震前遥感影像进行灾区建筑物单体物理模型快速提取。然后在构建典型建筑物遥感解译特征的基础上, 对灾区建筑物分别开展了基于光学遥感和震害仿真方法的震害快速识别。最后, 对快速获取的建筑物震害信息进行定量评估, 并将不同方法产出的结果与发布烈度进行了对比分析。结果显示, 空间上灾区建筑物主要沿河流和山谷呈散落带状分布, 局部空间分布规模较小但相对集中, 结构类型以土木和石木结构为主, 此类建筑在地震中表现出显著的易损性。2种方法在Ⅷ度以上烈度区识别高震害等级建筑物时, 总体评估误差在1度以内; 而对于Ⅶ度及以下区域, 评估结果则存在一定误差。研究表明, 强烈地震发生后, 借助不同方法可针对震后不同阶段的应急需求发挥作用, 快速提供建筑物震害评估结果, 为地震应急救灾和减灾提供科学参考。

关键词: 定日地震, 建筑物震害, 遥感影像, 震害仿真, 快速评估

Abstract:

Building damage caused by the earthquake is a significant factor contributing to fatalities in destructive earthquakes. Accurate assessment results of building damage after earthquakes are of great significance for revealing the mechanism of building damage under destructive earthquakes, guiding the research and development of seismic reinforcement technology and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. On January 7, 2025, the Dingri M6.8 earthquake in Tibet caused many building damages and casualties. To quickly evaluate the seismic damage of buildings in this earthquake and improve the scientificity and timeliness of various methods for assessing seismic damage in the emergency stage, a comparative study on the seismic damage of buildings in this earthquake was conducted based on remote sensing and seismic damage simulation.

Firstly, the GF-2 remote sensing images and Beijing -3 images obtained on January 8, 2025, were quickly collected as the input of remote sensing building seismic damage information extraction. The GF-2 remote sensing images, collected from October 2024, and actual strong ground motion data from the two nearest stations were used for seismic damage simulation prior to the earthquake. Based on data preprocessing, the physical models of the buildings in the disaster area were quickly extracted using a combination of deep learning and human-computer interaction from pre-earthquake remote sensing images.

Then, based on constructing the remote sensing structure type characteristics and seismic damage interpretation characteristics of typical buildings, combined with some risk census data and a small amount of field survey information, the physical models of buildings in the study area were adjusted and optimized, and the data obtained on site were used for verification. Based on this information and post-earthquake images, the rapid identification of building seismic damage was carried out using optical remote sensing. At the same time, based on the data from two measured strong earthquake stations, the rapid simulation of earthquake damage was carried out by using the urban seismic simulator(YouSimulator).

Taking the residential area as the statistical unit, the remote sensing seismic damage index was calculated for the quickly acquired remote sensing building seismic damage. According to the regional approximation principle, the corresponding model was used to calculate the ground equivalent seismic damage index, and the remote sensing intensity was estimated. Referring to the seismic intensity evaluation standard, the intensity of the seismic damage simulation results was calculated. Finally, the results of different methods were compared with the formal intensity.

The findings indicate that most buildings in the disaster area are dispersed along rivers and valleys in the form of zonal distribution, exhibiting a small but relatively concentrated at some local spatial locations. The structural types are predominantly civil and stone-wood structures, which exhibit pronounced vulnerability under this earthquake. The two methods demonstrated a certain degree of consistency in identifying buildings with high seismic damage ratings in intensity zones above Ⅷ, with an overall assessment error of less than 1 degree. However, in zones Ⅶ and below area, there was a specific error in the evaluation results. This observation indicates that, in the aftermath of a major seismic event, both methods can contribute to emergency response efforts at various stages post-event by providing rapid building damage assessment results, thereby serving as scientific references for earthquake emergency relief and disaster reduction.

Key words: Dingri earthquake, earthquake damage of buildings, remote sensing images, seismic simulation, rapid assessment

袁小祥, 林旭川, 陈子峰, 张建龙, 窦爱霞, 肖本夫, 杜浩国, 余思汗, 丁香, 方杰, 王书民. 基于遥感和震害仿真的2025年西藏定日6.8级地震建筑物震害对比[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 932-948.

YUAN Xiao-xiang, LIN Xu-chuan, CHEN Zi-feng, ZHANG Jian-long, DOU Ai-xia, XIAO Ben-fu, DU Hao-guo, YU Si-han, DING Xiang, FANG Jie, WANG Shu-min. COMPARATIVE STUDY ON BUILDING DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE 2025 M_S6.8 EARTHQUAKE IN DINGRI, XIZANG, BASED ON REMOTE SENSING AND SEISMIC SIMULATION[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2025, 47(3): 932-948.

图/表 10

图1 研究区概况及数据情况历史地震来自中国地震台网中心 ① , 活动断裂来自文献(Wu et al., 2024)

Fig. 1 Overview map of the study area in the Dingri MS6.8 earthquake.

图2 基于遥感和震害仿真的建筑物震害研究技术流程

Fig. 2 Workflow of seismic damage extraction based on remote sensing and seismic hazard simulation.

图3 建筑物震害仿真方法(林旭川, 2017; Lin et al., 2024) a 建筑物仿真流程; b 建筑物震害损伤判定指标

Fig. 3 Building seismic damage simulation methods(adapted from LIN Xu-chuan, 2017; Lin et al., 2024).

图4 基于光学遥感影像的建筑物解译特征 a—d 建筑物结构类型遥感标志; e—h 现场无人机验证照片

Fig. 4 Visualization of seismic damage interpretation indicators based on remote sensing images.

图5 研究区可视化震害提取结果分布图 a 措果乡局部区域建筑物三维展示; b 长所乡局部区域建筑物三维展示

Fig. 5 Distribution of visualized earthquake damage extraction results for typical scenarios in the study area.

图6 极灾区建筑物震害结果 a 措果乡局部北京三号遥感影像; b 措果乡北京三号遥感震害提取结果; c 措果乡D0007震害仿真结果; d 措果乡D0004震害仿真结果; e 长所乡局部北京三号遥感影像; f 长所乡北京三号遥感震害提取结果; g 长所乡D0007震害仿真结果; h 长所乡D0004震害仿真结果

Fig. 6 Local seismic building damages in the severely affected area.

图7 长所乡局部典型地区建筑物震害结果对比图 a 北京三号遥感震害结果; b 震后无人机震害结果; c D0007震害仿真结果; d D0004震害仿真结果

Fig. 7 Comparative analysis of seismic building damage in representative local areas of Changsuo Town.

表1 遥感震害快速识别与震害仿真结果比较(单位: %)

Table 1 Result comparison between rapid remote sensing seismic damage identification and seismic damage simulation in percentage

震害类别	震害仿真(D0004/D0007)
遥感	毁坏	严重破坏	中等破坏	轻微破坏	基本完好
倒塌	0.0/11.9	11.9/0.0	0.0/0.0	0.1/0.1	0.0/0.0
局部倒塌	0.0/17.9	17.9/0.0	0.0/0.1	0.3/0.2	0.0/0.0
未倒塌	0.0/66.7	66.7/0.1	0.0/1.4	1.9/1.7	1.2/0.0

图8 典型居民点建筑物震害定量评估结果比较(地面调查烈度来自应急管理部中国地震局 ① )

Fig. 8 Comparison of quantitative assessment results of seismic damage to typical residential buildings.

表2 不同方法居民点评估烈度与发布烈度的结果比较

Table2 Comparative analysis between assessed intensity from different methods and official released intensity in residential settlements

评估烈度		遥感评估结果			D0004仿真结果			D0007仿真结果
评估烈度		Ⅹ度	Ⅸ度	Ⅷ度	Ⅸ度	Ⅷ度	Ⅶ度	Ⅸ度	Ⅷ度	Ⅶ度
居民点对应发布烈度	Ⅸ度	1	1		1	1		2
	Ⅷ度		1	1		2		2
	Ⅶ度			3		8	2	9	1
	Ⅵ度					1	1	1	1

参考文献 43

[1]	国家市场监督管理总局, 国家标准化管理委员会. 2020. 中国地震烈度表(GB/T 17742-2020)[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社.
	State Administration for Market Regulation, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standards Administration of China. 2020. The Chinese seismic intensity scale(GB/T 17742-2020)[S]. China Standards Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[2]	林旭川. 2017. 城市建筑群地震灾害数值仿真与风险控制[J]. 城市与减灾, 20(3): 18-22.
	LIN Xu-chuan. 2017. Numerical simulation and risk control of earthquake disaster of urban buildings[J]. City and Disaster Reduction, 20(3): 18-22 (in Chinese).
[3]	陆新征, 田源, 许镇, 等. 2020. 一种新型城市地震灾害模拟方法: 城市抗震弹塑性分析方法[J]. 科学通报, 65(11): 1055-1062.
	LU Xin-zheng, TIAN Yuan, XU Zhen, et al. 2020. A new urban earthquake disaster simulation method: City-scale nonlinear time-history analysis[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 65(11): 1055-1062 (in Chinese).
[4]	聂高众, 安基文, 邓砚. 2012. 地震应急灾情服务进展[J]. 地震地质, 34(4): 782-791. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2012.04.020.
	NIE Gao-Zhong, AN Ji-wen, DENG Yan. 2012. Advances in earthquake emergency disaster service[J]. Seismology and Geology, 34(4): 782-791 (in Chinese). DOI
[5]	潘毅, 张兰林, 林旭川, 等. 2024. 泸县6.0级地震城市建筑群震害模拟与震害机理分析[J]. 防灾减灾工程学报, 44(5): 977-986.
	PAN Yi, ZHANG Lan-lin, LIN Xu-chuan, et al. 2024. Simulation and mechanism analysis of seismic damage to urban buildings groups during the M_S6.0 Luxian earthquake[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering, 44(5): 977-986 (in Chinese).
[6]	孙柏涛, 张桂欣. 2017. 中国大陆建筑物地震灾害风险分布研究[J]. 土木工程学报, 50(9): 1-7.
	SUN Bai-tao, ZHANG Gui-xin. 2017. Study on seismic disaster risk distribution of buildings in mainland China[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 50(9): 1-7 (in Chinese).
[7]	王晓青, 窦爱霞, 丁香, 等. 2015a. 地震烈度应急遥感评估研究与应用进展[J]. 地球信息科学, 17(12): 1536-1543.
	WANG Xiao-qing, DOU Ai-xia, DING Xiang, et al. 2015a. Advance on the RS-based emergency seismic intensity assessment[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 17(12): 1536-1543 (in Chinese).
[8]	王晓青, 窦爱霞, 王龙, 等. 2015b. 2013年四川芦山7.0级地震烈度遥感评估[J]. 地球物理学报, 58(1): 163-171.
	WANG Xiao-qing, DOU Ai-xia, WANG Long, et al. 2015b. RS-based Assessment of Seismic intensity of the 2013 Lushan, Sichuan, China M_S7.0 earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 58(1): 163-171 (in Chinese).
[9]	王晓青, 王龙, 章熙海, 等. 2009. 汶川8.0级地震震害遥感定量化初步研究——以都江堰城区破坏为例[J]. 地震, 29(1): 174-181.
	WANG Xiao-qing, WANG-Long, ZHANG Xi-hai, et al. 2009. Primary Quantitative study on earthquake damage extracted from remote sensing imagery: A case study of doujiangyan due to the Wenchuan M8.0 earthquake[J]. Earthquake, 29(1): 174-181 (in Chinese).
[10]	王晓青. 2010. 汶川地震建筑物震害遥感解译图集[M]. 北京: 地震出版社: 82-91.
	WANG Xiao-qing. 2010. Atlas of Remote Sensing Interpretation of Building Damage to Wenchuan earthquake[M]. Seismological Press, Beijing: 82-91 (in Chinese).
[11]	温瑞智, 贾国玉. 1998. 城市建筑物震害损失快速评估系统[J]. 世界地震工程, 14(2): 23-28.
	WEN Rui-zhi, JIA Guo-yu. 1998. Rapid assessment system for seismic damage losses of urban buildings[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 14(2): 23-28 (in Chinese).
[12]	吴开来. 2018. 城市震害模拟中带填充墙RC框架结构模型参数取值方法研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 中国地震局工程力学研究所.
	WU Kai-lai. 2018. Parameter determination of RC Frame model with infill walls for city earthquake disaster simulation[D]. Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin (in Chinese).
[13]	肖本夫, 袁小祥, 陈波, 等. 2023. 基于倾斜摄影技术的典型情景可视化震害定量评估——以四川马尔康震群为例[J]. 地震地质, 45(4): 847-863. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2023.04.003.
	XIAO Ben-fu, YUAN Xiao-xiang, CHEN Bo, et al. 2023. Quantitative assessment of seismic damage in typical scenarios based on oblique aerial photography: The case of the Maerkang earthquake swarm, Sichuan, China[J]. Seismology and Geology, 45(4): 847-863 (in Chinese). DOI
[14]	徐心悦. 2019. 藏南申扎-定结断裂系卡达正断裂晚第四纪活动性及其环境效应[D]. 北京: 中国地震局地质研究所.
	XU Xin-yue. 2019. Late Quaternary activity and its environment effects of the N-S trend Kharta fault in Xainza-Dinggye rift, Southern Tibet[D]. Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing (in Chinese).
[15]	袁小祥, 林旭川, 窦爱霞, 等. 2023. 基于震前高分影像和震害仿真的建筑物震害快速评估: 以四川泸定6.8级地震为例[J]. 地球物理学报, 66(4): 1438-1447.
	YUAN Xiao-xiang, LIN Xu-chuan, DOU Ai-xia, et al. 2023. Rapid assessment of building seismic damage based on pre-earthquake high-rasolution images and seismic simulation, taking the Luding M6.8 earthquake in Sichuan as an example[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 66(4): 1438-1447 (in Chinese).
[16]	袁小祥, 王晓青, 丁香, 等. 2017. 基于无人机影像的九寨沟地震建筑物震害定量评估[J]. 中国地震, 33(4): 582-589.
	YUAN Xiao-xiang, WANG Xiao-qing, DING Xiang, et al. 2017. Quantitative assessment of building damage in disaster area of the Jiuzhaigou earthquake based on UAV images[J]. Earthquake Research in China, 33(4): 532-589 (in Chinese).
[17]	张彪. 2022. 材料不确定性对RC框架结构抗震性能及城市震害模拟结果的影响[D]. 成都: 西南交通大学.
	ZHANG Biao. 2022. Influence of material uncertainty on seismic performance of RC frame structure and simulation results of urban seismic damage[D]. Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu (in Chinese).
[18]	张建龙, 尼玛, 司金罗布, 等. 2021. 西藏定日 M_S5.9 地震烈度评定及震害特征分析[J]. 西藏科技, 334:48-49, 59.
	ZHANG Jian-long, NI Ma, Sijinluobu, et al. 2021. Intensity assessment and seismic damage characteristics analysis of the M_S5.9 earthquake in Dingri, Xizang[J]. Tibet Science and Technology, 334:48-49, 59 (in Chinese).
[19]	张进江, 郭磊, 丁林, 等. 2002. 申扎-定结正断层体系中、南段构造特征及其与藏南拆离系的关系[J]. 科学通报, 47(10): 738-743.
	ZHANG Jin-jiang, GUO Lei, DING Lin, et al. 2002. Structural characteristics of the central and southern segments of the Shenzha-Dingjie normal fault system and their relationship with the southern Tibet detachment system[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 47(10): 738-743 (in Chinese).
[20]	张景发, 李强, 张庆云, 等. 2018. 多源遥感图像的1976年 M_S7.8 唐山大地震等烈度区判定[J]. 遥感学报, 22(S1): 162-173.
	ZHANG Jing-fa, LI Qiang, ZHANG Qing-yun, et al. 2018. Intensity zone of the 1976 M_S7.8 Tangshan earthquake based on multisource remote sensing images[J]. National Remote Sensing Bulletin, 22(S1): 162-173 (in Chinese).
[21]	中国地震局. 2018a. 地震灾害遥感评估建筑物破坏(DB/T 75-2018)[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社.
	China Earthquake Administration. 2018a. Remote sensing assessment of earthquake disasters and building damage(GB/T 75-2018)[S]. China Standards Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[22]	中国地震局. 2018b. 地震灾害遥感评估地震烈度(DB/T 77-2018)[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社.
	China Earthquake Administration. 2018b. Remote sensing assessment of earthquake disasters and seismic intensity(GB/T 77-2018)[S]. China Standards Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[23]	中国地震局地质研究所. 2025. 2025年西藏定日6.8级地震地壳形变及发震断裂模型初步分析. [EB/OL]. [2025-01-09]. https://www.eq-igl.ac.cnzhxwinfo/2025/38560.html
	Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration. 2025. Preliminary analysis of crustal deformation and seismogenic fault model of the 2025 Xizang Dingri M6.8 earthquake. [EB/OL]. [2025-01-09]. https://www.eq-igl.ac.cnzhxwinfo/2025/38560.html in Chinese)
[24]	Axel C, Aardt J. 2017. Building damage assessment using airborne lidar[J]. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 11(4): 046024.
[25]	Cao C X, Liu D, Singh R P, et al. 2016. Integrated detection and analysis of earthquake disaster information using airborne data[J]. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7(3): 1099-1128.
[26]	Chaidas K, Tataris G, Soulakellis N. 2021. Seismic damage semantics on post-earthquake LOD3 building models generated by UAS[J]. International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(5): 345.
[27]	Chen J N, Lu Y Q, Yu Q H, et al. 2021. TransUNet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation[J]. arXiv preprint: 2102.043 06.
[28]	Chen X, Lin X, Zhang L, et al. 2022. Method for rapidly generating urban damage scenarios under non-uniform ground motion input based on matching algorithms and time history analyses[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 152(1): 107055.
[29]	Dong L, Shan J. 2013. A comprehensive review of earthquake-induced building damage detection with remote sensing techniques[J]. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 84(10): 85-99.
[30]	Du H G, Lin X C, Jiang J. et al. 2024. A single-building damage detection model based on multi-feature fusion: A case study in Yangbi[J]. iScience, 27(1): 1-23.
[31]	Gerke M, Norman K. 2011. Automatic structural seismic damage assessment with airborne oblique pictometry imagery[J]. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 77(9): 885-898.
[32]	Ghaffarian S, Kerle N, Pasolli E, et al. 2019. Post-disaster building database updating using automated deep learning: An integration of pre-disaster OpenStreetMap and multi-temporal satellite data[J]. Remote Sensing, 11(20): 24-27.
[33]	Hori M, Ichimura T. 2008. Current state of integrated earthquake simulation for earthquake hazard and disaster[J]. Journal of Seismology, 12(2): 307-321.
[34]	Ji M, Liu L, Buchroithner M. 2018. Identifying collapsed buildings using post-earthquake satellite imagery and convolutional neural networks: A case study of the 2010 Haiti earthquake[J]. Remote Sensing, 10(11): 1689.
[35]	Lin X C, Liu X Y, Jiang H, et al. 2024. Assessment on detailed regional seismic damage risk of buildings based on time history dynamic analyses[J]. Bulletin of earthquake engineering, 22(6): 2903-2923.
[36]	Lin X C, Wang K X, Zhang L X, et al. 2019. Development of a simulation platform to model, assess and visualize the earthquake disasters in city level[C]. 2nd International Conference on Natural Hazards & Infrastructure, 2019, Chania, Greece: 1-7.
[37]	Lu X Z, Guan H. 2017. Earthquake Disaster Simulation of Civil infrastructures: From tall Buildings to Urban Areas[M]. Springer, Singapore: 641-711.
[38]	Miura H, Midorikawa S, Kerle N. 2013. Detection of building damage areas of the 2006 Central Java, Indonesia, earthquake through digital analysis of optical satellite images[J]. Earthquake spectra, 29(2): 453-473.
[39]	Tong X H, Hong Z H, Liu S J, et al. 2012. Building-damage detection using pre- and post-seismic high-resolution satellite stereo imagery: A case study of the May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake[J]. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 68: 13-17.
[40]	Wada A, Hirose K. 1989. Building frames subjected to 2D earthquake motion[C]. Seismic Engineering: Research & Practice Proceedings, Structures Congress’89, ASCE, 1989, San Francisco: 388-397.
[41]	Wu X Y, Xu X W, Yu G H, et al. 2024. China Active Faults Database and its web system[J]. Earth System Science Data, 16(7): 3391-3417.
[42]	Xiong C, Lu X Z, Lin X C, et al. 2017. Parameter determination and damage assessment for THA-based regional seismic damage prediction of multi-story buildings[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 21(3): 461-485.
[43]	Zhang R, Li H, Duan K, et al. 2020. Automatic detection of earthquake-damaged buildings by integrating UAV oblique photography and infrared thermal imaging[J]. Remote Sensing, 12(16): 2621.

基于遥感和震害仿真的2025年西藏定日6.8级地震建筑物震害对比

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON BUILDING DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE 2025 M_S6.8 EARTHQUAKE IN DINGRI, XIZANG, BASED ON REMOTE SENSING AND SEISMIC SIMULATION

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 43

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	尹欣欣, 左可桢, 赵翠萍, 蔡润. 西藏定日 M_S6.8 地震重定位及前震序列识别[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 850-868.
[2]	万永革, 王润妍, 靳志同, 兰从欣. 2025年1月7日定日地震震源特性及对申扎-定结裂谷活动的启示[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 806-819.
[3]	刘胜, 谈洪波, 杨光亮, 孟恒舟, 秦海涛, 王嘉沛, 黄敏夫. 2025年西藏定日M_W7.1地震破裂过程反演[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 777-788.
[4]	孟恒舟, 杨光亮, 秦海涛, 谈洪波, 刘胜, 王嘉沛, 黄敏夫, 张明辉. 2025定日M_S6.8地震震源区及其邻区偏应力与岩石圈弹性厚度特征[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 761-776.
[5]	陈翰林, 王勤彩, 高锦瑞, 李君. 2025年西藏定日M_S6.8地震序列发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 747-760.
[6]	张达, 石峰, 罗全星, 乔俊香, 王鑫, 易文星, 李涛, 李安. 西藏定日M_S6.8地震最大地表同震垂直位移量及其地表变形样式[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 707-717.
[7]	王鹏, 戴宗辉, 孔雪, 李铂, 徐长朋, 张梦昕. 西藏定日 M_S6.8 地震序列应力场演化特征分析[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 881-896.
[8]	杜浩国, 左小清, 林旭川, 肖本夫, 卢永坤, 和仕芳, 张方浩, 袁小祥, 陶天艳, 叶阳, 邓树荣, 赵正贤, 徐俊祖, 白仙富, 张原硕, 张露露. 基于震后无人机影像的单体建筑物纹理特征损伤检测——以2025年西藏定日县 M_S6.8 地震为例[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 949-968.
[9]	盛书中, 王倩茹, 李振月, 李红星, 张小娟, 葛坤朋, 宫猛. 基于构造应力场研究2025年西藏定日6.8级地震的发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(1): 49-63.
[10]	邹俊杰, 邵志刚, 何宏林, 高璐, 许月怡, 窦爱霞, 梁泽毓. 2025年1月7日西藏定日M_S6.8地震地表破裂解译与建筑物震害损毁统计[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(1): 16-35.
[11]	马晨语, 程滔, 万园, 潘波, 周秉锐, 颜丽丽. 长白山天池火山古锥体形貌重建[J]. 地震地质, 2024, 46(6): 1248-1262.
[12]	游子成, 毕海芸, 郑文俊, 彭慧, 梁淑敏, 段磊, 覃乙根. 基于高分辨率遥感影像的地震破裂带精细特征研究——以理塘断裂为例[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(5): 1057-1073.
[13]	白其乐格尔, 沈军, 肖淳, 戴训也. 西藏中北部改则幅(I45)全新世断层典型遥感影像[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(1): 92-110.
[14]	杜浩国, 林旭川, 张建国, 杜浩标, 张方浩, 杜竹泉, 卢永坤, 代博洋. 基于改进蚁群算法与无人机影像的震害识别方法及其在漾濞地震中的应用[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 1013-1029.
[15]	张波, 王爱国, 袁道阳, 吴明, 刘小丰, 郑龙. 基于多源遥感解译和野外验证的断裂几何展布——以西秦岭光盖山-迭山南麓断裂为例[J]. 地震地质, 2018, 40(5): 1018-1039.

基于遥感和震害仿真的2025年西藏定日6.8级地震建筑物震害对比

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON BUILDING DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE 2025 MS6.8 EARTHQUAKE IN DINGRI, XIZANG, BASED ON REMOTE SENSING AND SEISMIC SIMULATION

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 43

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON BUILDING DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE 2025 M_S6.8 EARTHQUAKE IN DINGRI, XIZANG, BASED ON REMOTE SENSING AND SEISMIC SIMULATION