A Physics-Based Seismic Risk Assessment of the Qujiang Fault: From Dynamic Rupture to Disaster Estimation

Yilong Li; Zijia Wang; Zhenguo Zhang; Yuhao Gu; Houyun Yu

doi:10.1007/s13753-024-00542-0

Volume 15 Issue 1

Feb. 2024

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Disaster Risk Science > 2024 > 15(1): 165-177

Yilong Li, Zijia Wang, Zhenguo Zhang, Yuhao Gu, Houyun Yu. A Physics-Based Seismic Risk Assessment of the Qujiang Fault: From Dynamic Rupture to Disaster Estimation[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2024, 15(1): 165-177. doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00542-0

Citation:

Yilong Li, Zijia Wang, Zhenguo Zhang, Yuhao Gu, Houyun Yu. A Physics-Based Seismic Risk Assessment of the Qujiang Fault: From Dynamic Rupture to Disaster Estimation[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2024, 15(1): 165-177. doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00542-0

Citation:

PDF

A Physics-Based Seismic Risk Assessment of the Qujiang Fault: From Dynamic Rupture to Disaster Estimation

doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00542-0

1. School of National Safety and Emergency Management, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai, 519087, China;
2. Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China;
3. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Geophysical High-Resolution Imaging Technology, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China

Funds:

This work was supported by the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Geophysical High-Resolution Imaging Technology (2022B1212010002), Key Special Project for Introduced Talents Team of the Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Guangzhou) (GML2019ZD0203), and the Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (KQTD20170810111725321).

Accepted Date: 2024-02-06

Available Online: 2024-03-14

Publish Date: 2024-02-20

Abstract

Abstract

This study achieved the construction of earthquake disaster scenarios based on physics-based methods—from fault dynamic rupture to seismic wave propagation—and then population and economic loss estimations. The physics-based dynamic rupture and strong ground motion simulations can fully consider the three-dimensional complexity of physical parameters such as fault geometry, stress field, rock properties, and terrain. Quantitative analysis of multiple seismic disaster scenarios along the Qujiang Fault in western Yunnan Province in southwestern China based on different nucleation locations was achieved. The results indicate that the northwestern segment of the Qujiang Fault is expected to experience significantly higher levels of damage compared to the southeastern segment. Additionally, there are significant variations in human losses, even though the economic losses are similar across different scenarios. Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture, Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture, Yuxi City, Honghe Hani and Yi Autonomous Prefecture, and Wenshan Zhuang and Miao Autonomous Prefecture were identified as at medium to high seismic risks, with Yuxi and Honghe being particularly vulnerable. Implementing targeted earthquake prevention measures in Yuxi and Honghe will significantly mitigate the potential risks posed by the Qujiang Fault. Notably, although the fault is within Yuxi, Honghe is likely to suffer the most severe damage. These findings emphasize the importance of considering rupture directivity and its influence on ground motion distribution when assessing seismic risk.
- Earthquake disaster loss estimation,
- Physics-based earthquake scenario simulation,
- Qujiang Fault,
- Rupture directivity,
- Seismic risk assessment

FullText(HTML)

References(58)

References

[1]	Andrews, D.J., and M. Barall. 2011. Specifying initial stress for dynamic heterogeneous earthquake source models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(5): 2408–2417.
[2]	Bradley, B.A. 2019. On-going challenges in physics-based ground motion prediction and insights from the 2010–2011 Canterbury and 2016 Kaikoura, New Zealand earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 124: 354–364.
[3]	Brocher, T.M. 2005. Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds and density in the earth’s crust. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95(6): 2081–2092.
[4]	Chen, Y., and J.W. Baker. 2019. Spatial correlations in cybershake physics-based ground-motion simulations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 109(6): 2447–2458.
[5]	Chen, Y., Q. Chen, and L. Chen. 2001. Vulnerability analysis in earthquake loss estimate. Natural Hazards 23(2): 349–364.
[6]	Cornell, C.A. 1968. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58(5): 1583–1606.
[7]	Deng, Q., P. Zhang, Y. Ran, X. Yang, W. Min, and Q. Chu. 2003. Basic characteristics of active tectonics of China. Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences 46(4): 356–372.
[8]	Douglas, J., and B. Edwards. 2016. Recent and future developments in earthquake ground motion estimation. Earth-Science Reviews 160: 203–219.
[9]	Du, W., and C. Ning. 2021. Modeling spatial cross-correlation of multiple ground motion intensity measures (SAs, PGA, PGV, Ia, CAV, and significant durations) based on principal component and geostatistical analyses. Earthquake Spectra 37(1): 486–504.
[10]	Dunham, E.M., D. Belanger, L. Cong, and J.E. Kozdon. 2011. Earthquake ruptures with strongly rate-weakening friction and off-fault plasticity, part 2: Nonplanar faults. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(5): 2308–2322.
[11]	Erdik, M. 2017. Earthquake risk assessment. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15(12): 5055–5092.
[12]	Gerstenberger, M.C., W. Marzocchi, T. Allen, M. Pagani, J. Adams, L. Danciu, E.H. Field, H. Fujiwara, et al. 2020. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at regional and national scales: State of the art and future challenges. Reviews of Geophysics 58(2): Article e2019RG000653
[13]	Graves, R., T.H. Jordan, S. Callaghan, E. Deelman, E. Field, G. Juve, C. Kesselman, and P. Maechling et al. 2011. Cybershake: A physics-based seismic hazard model for southern California. Pure and Applied Geophysics 168(3): 367–381.
[14]	Harris, R.A., M. Barall, B. Aagaard, S. Ma, D. Roten, K. Olsen, B.C. Duan, and D.Y. Liu et al. 2018. A suite of exercises for verifying dynamic earthquake rupture codes. Seismological Research Letters 89(3): 1146–1162.
[15]	Ida, Y. 1972. Cohesive force across the tip of a longitudinal-shear crack and Griffith’s specific surface energy. Journal of Geophysical Research 77(20): 3796–3805.
[16]	Infantino, M., I. Mazzieri, A.G. Özcebe, R. Paolucci, and M. Stupazzini. 2020. 3D physics-based numerical simulations of ground motion in Istanbul from earthquakes along the Marmara segment of the North Anatolian fault. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 110(5): 2559–2576.
[17]	Infantino, M., C. Smerzini, and J. Lin. 2021. Spatial correlation of broadband ground motions from physics-based numerical simulations. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 50(10): 2575–2594.
[18]	Kan, R., S. Zhang, F. Yan, and L. Yu. 1977. Present tectonic stress field and its relation to the characteristics of recent tectonic activity in southwestern China. Chinese Journal of Geophysics 20: 96–109 (in Chinese).
[19]	Khan, S., M.V.D. Meijde, H.V.D. Werff, and M. Shafique. 2020. The impact of topography on seismic amplification during the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 20(2): 399–411.
[20]	Li, B., M.B. Sorensen, K. Atakan, Y.R. Li, and Z.H. Li. 2020. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Shanxi rift system, North China. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 110(1): 127–153.
[21]	Li, Y., D. Xin, and Z. Zhang. 2021. A rapid-response earthquake fatality estimation model for mainland China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 66: Article 102618.
[22]	Li, Y., D. Xin, and Z. Zhang. 2023. Estimating the economic loss caused by earthquake in mainland China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 95: Article 103708.
[23]	Li, Y., Z. Zhang, W. Wang, and X. Feng. 2022. Rapid estimation of earthquake fatalities in mainland China based on physical simulation and empirical statistics: A case study of the 2021 Yangbi earthquake. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(11): Article 6820.
[24]	Liu, Z., F. Huang, and Z. Jin. 1999. The 1970 Tonghai earthquake. Beijing, China: Seismological Press.
[25]	Reuter, H., A. Nelson, and A. Jarvis. 2007. An evaluation of void-filling interpolation methods for SRTM data. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 21(9): 983–1008.
[26]	Riaño, A.C., J.C. Reyes, L.E. Yamín, J. Bielak, R. Taborda, and D. Restrepo. 2021. Integration of 3D large-scale earthquake simulations into the assessment of the seismic risk of Bogota, Colombia. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 50(1): 155–176.
[27]	SAC (Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China). 2020. The Chinese seismic intensity scale. National Standard of the People’s Republic of China, GB/T 17742-2020. Beijing: SAC.
[28]	Shen, W., M.H. Ritzwoller, D. Kang, Y. Kim, F.-C. Lin, J. Ning, W. Wang, Y. Zheng, and L. Zhou. 2016. A seismic reference model for the crust and uppermost mantle beneath China from surface wave dispersion. Geophysical Journal International 206(2): 954–979.
[29]	Shi, Z.Q., and S.M. Day. 2013. Rupture dynamics and ground motion from 3-D rough-fault simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth 118(3): 1122–1141.
[30]	Sims, K., A. Reith, E. Bright, J. McKee, and A. Rose. 2022. Landscan global 2021. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
[31]	Smerzini, C., and K. Pitilakis. 2018. Seismic risk assessment at urban scale from 3D physics-based numerical modeling: The case of Thessaloniki. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16(7): 2609–2631.
[32]	Stupazzini, M., M. Infantino, A. Allmann, and R. Paolucci. 2021. Physics-based probabilistic seismic hazard and loss assessment in large urban areas: A simplified application to Istanbul. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 50(1): 99–115.
[33]	Wang, Z., Y. Li, W. Wang, W. Zhang, and Z. Zhang. 2022. Revisiting paleoearthquakes with numerical modeling: A case study of the 1679 Sanhe-Pinggu earthquake. Seismological Research Letters 94(2A): 720–730.
[34]	Wang, W., Y. Li, Z. Zhang, D. Xin, Z. He, W. Zhang, and X. Chen. 2023. Rapid estimation of disaster losses for the M6.8 Luding earthquake on September 5, 2022. Science China Earth Sciences 66(6): 1334–1344.
[35]	Wang, X., J. Wang, and C. Zhang. 2023. Deterministic full-scenario analysis for maximum credible earthquake hazards. Nature Communications 14(1): Article 6600.
[36]	Wang, Y., B. Zhang, J. Hou, and X. Xu. 2014. Structure and tectonic geomorphology of the Qujiang fault at the intersection of the Ailao Shan-Red River fault and the Xianshuihe-Xiaojiang fault system, China. Tectonophysics 634: 156–170.
[37]	Wang, W., Z. Zhang, W. Zhang, H. Yu, Q. Liu, W. Zhang, and X. Chen. 2022. CGFDM33D-EQR: A platform for rapid response to earthquake disasters in 3D complex media. Seismological Research Letters 93(4): 2320–2334.
[38]	Wen, X., F. Du, F. Long, J. Fan, and H. Zhu. 2011. Tectonic dynamics and correlation of major earthquake sequences of the Xiaojiang and Qujiang-Shiping fault systems, Yunnan, China. Science China Earth Sciences 54(10): 1563–1575.
[39]	Wu, J., N. Li, and P. Shi. 2014. Benchmark wealth capital stock estimations across China’s 344 prefectures: 1978 to 2012. China Economic Review 31: 288–302.
[40]	Xin, D., and Z. Zhang. 2021. On the comparison of seismic ground motion simulated by physics-based dynamic rupture and predicted by empirical attenuation equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 111(5): 2595–2616.
[41]	Xu, G., and M. Gao. 2007. Potential rupture surface model and its application on probablistic seismic hazard analysis. Acta Seismologica Sinica 3: 285–294, 337 (in Chinese).
[42]	Xu X., X. Wen, G. Yu, G. Chen, Y. Klinger, J. Hubbard, J. Shaw. 2009. Coseismic reverse- and oblique-slip surface faulting generated by the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Geology 37(6): 515–518.
[43]	Xu, D., W. Gong, Z. Zhang, J. Xu, H. Yu, and X. Chen. 2023. The 2016 Menyuan earthquake: The largest self-arrested crustal earthquake ever observed. Geophysical Research Letters 50(11): Article e2023GL103556.
[44]	Yu, H., Z. Zhang, F. Hu, D. Xu, and X. Chen. 2023. Estimation of the nucleation location and rupture extent of the 1850 Xichang, Sichuan, China, earthquake by dynamic rupture simulations on a multi-segment stepover structure. Earth and Space Science 10(6): Article e2022EA002775.
[45]	Yu, H., W. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Z. Li, and X. Chen. 2020. Investigation on the dynamic rupture of the 1970 Ms 77 Tonghai, Yunnan, China, earthquake on the Qujiang fault. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 110(2): 898–919.
[46]	Zhang, S. 1980. The earthquake sequence characteristics of the Tonghai earthquake, January 5, 1970. Journal of Seismological Research 2: 11–18 (in Chinese).
[47]	Zhang, W., and X. Chen. 2006. Traction image method for irregular free surface boundaries in finite difference seismic wave simulation. Geophysical Journal International 167(1): 337–353.
[48]	Zhang, S., and B. Liu. 1978. Seismic geological characteristics of Tonghai earthquake in 1970. Scientia Geologica Sinica 4(4): 323–335, 393–394 (in Chinese).
[49]	Zhang, W., A. Guo, D. Ren, C. Zhao, J. Wu, and X. Li. 2013. Reanalysis of the historical facts and data of losses, disaster relief and reconstruction of the 1970 Tonghai earthquake in Yunnan Province. Noethwestern Seismological Journal 35(S1): 167–172 (in Chinese).
[50]	Zhang, Z., W. Zhang, and X. Chen. 2014. Three-dimensional curved grid finite-difference modelling for non-planar rupture dynamics. Geophysical Journal International 199(2): 860–879.
[51]	Zhang, W., Z. Zhang, M. Li, and X. Chen. 2020. GPU implementation of curved-grid finite-difference modelling for non-planar rupture dynamics. Geophysical Journal International 222(3): 2121–2135.
[52]	Zhang, Z., W. Zhang, D. Xin, K. Chen, and X. Chen. 2020. A dynamic-rupture model of the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake being compatible with the observations. Seismological Research Letters 92(2A): 870–876.
[53]	Zhou, R., F. Huang, and Y. Han. 1995. The fault plane structure of the Qujiang fault and its seismological implication. Journal of Seismological Research 18(1): 68–74 (in Chinese).
[54]	Zhu, C. 1984. The Qujiang fault geometry and its relation to seismicity. Journal of Seismological Research 7(5): 525–532 (in Chinese).
[55]	Zhu, C. 1985. The Qujiang fault activity in quaternary period. Yunnan Geology 4(2): 178–187 (in Chinese).
[56]	Zhu, S. 2018. Why did the most severe seismic hazard occur in the Beichuan area in the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, china? Insight from finite element modelling. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 281: 79–91.
[57]	Zhu, S., and J. Yuan. 2020. Physical mechanism for severe seismic hazard in the 2010 Yushu, China, earthquake (Mw=6.9): Insights from FEM simulations. Geomatics Natural Hazards & Risk 11(1): 2123–2146.
[58]	Zhu, G., Z. Zhang, J. Wen, W. Zhang, and X. Chen. 2013. Preliminary results of strong ground motion simulation for the Lushan earthquake of 20 April 2013. China. Earthquake Science 26(3–4): 191–197.