面向城市尺度的群体建筑结构抗震韧性评估:以陕西省为例

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2026.06.0877

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (6): 238-245.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2026.06.0877

面向城市尺度的群体建筑结构抗震韧性评估:以陕西省为例

周洲¹^,²(), 张炜超³^,⁴^,^**(), 田谦润⁵, 田勤虎³^,⁴, 于晓辉⁵

¹ 北京建筑大学土木与交通工程学院, 北京 100044
² 北京建筑大学北京未来城市设计高精尖创新中心, 北京 100044
³ 陕西省地震局, 陕西西安 710068
⁴ 陕西西安地球深部构造中国地震局野外科学观测研究站, 陕西西安 710068
⁵ 桂林理工大学土木与建筑工程学院, 广西桂林 541004

收稿日期:2026-01-15 修回日期:2026-03-27 出版日期:2026-06-28
通信作者:
^** 张炜超(1989—),男,河南灵宝人,硕士,工程师,主要从事地震工程与地震灾害方面的研究。E-mail:1072020431@qq.com。
作者简介:
周洲 (1991—),男,河北廊坊人,博士,副教授,主要从事主余震风险分析和韧性评估方面的研究。E-mail: zzhouhit@163.com。
田勤虎，高级工程师
于晓辉, 教授
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助(52408502); 国家自然科学基金资助(52278492); 地震科技星火计划项目(XH24040B); 陕西省重点研发计划项目(2024SF-ZDCYL-05-15)

Seismic resilience assessment of group building structures at urban scale: a case study of Shaanxi province

Zhou Zhou¹^,²(), Zhang Weichao³^,⁴^,^**(), Tian Qianrun⁵, Tian Qinhu³^,⁴, Yu Xiaohui⁵

¹ School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China
² Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Future Urban Design, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China
³ Shaanxi Earthquake Agency, Xi'an Shaanxi 710068, China
⁴ Shaanxi Xi'an Shanxi Deep Earth Structure Observation and Research Station of China Earthquake Administration, Xi'an Shaanxi 710068, China
⁵ College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin Guangxi 541004, China

Received:2026-01-15 Revised:2026-03-27 Published:2026-06-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为实现城市尺度群体建筑结构抗震韧性的高效评估,解决大规模非线性时程分析导致的计算资源需求急剧膨胀问题,弥补传统评估仅以建筑数量占比作为统计依据的局限性,首先,基于目标结构类型构建经验易损性函数,确定其在多遇地震和罕遇地震作用下的损伤状态;其次,根据《建筑抗震韧性评价标准》,量化上述地震作用下的修复时间、修复费用和人员伤亡指标,进而评定单体结构抗震韧性水平;然后,对不同抗震韧性水平的单体结构分类,提出基于建筑面积占比的区域抗震韧性指标(RI);最后,以陕西省群体建筑结构为例开展应用分析。结果表明:安康市抗震韧性水平最高,榆林市最低;综合修复时间、修复费用和人员伤亡3个维度,安康、延安、汉中3市表现较为优异;基于个体数量和基于建筑面积占比的区域抗震RI评估结果存在一定差异,仅依赖建筑个体数量可能会低估大型建筑对整体韧性的贡献,从而低估城市真实恢复能力。

关键词: 群体建筑结构, 抗震韧性, 经验易损性, 修复时间, 修复费用, 人员伤亡

Abstract:

To achieve an efficient assessment of the seismic resilience of urban scale building groups, to reduce the sharp growth in computational demand caused by large-scale nonlinear time-history analysis, and to overcome the limitation of traditional assessment based only on the proportion of building count ratios as statistical evidence, empirical fragility functions were first constructed based on the target structural type to determined its damage states under frequent and rare earthquakes. Second, according to the “Standard for seismic resilience assessment of building”, the repair time, repair cost and casualty indicators under the aforementioned earthquake actions were quantified to evaluate the seismic resilience levels of individual structures. Then, the individual structures with different seismic resilience levels were classified, and a regional seismic resilience index(RI) based on the proportion of building area was proposed. Finally, the group building structure in Shaanxi Province is taken as an example for application analysis. The results show that Ankang city has the highest seismic resilience level, whereas Yulin city has the lowest. Considering the three dimensions of repair time, repair cost and casualties, Ankang, Yan'an and Hanzhong cities perform relatively well. There are certain differences between the regional seismic RI based on the number of individual structures and those based on the proportion of building area. Relying solely on the number of individual buildings may underestimate the contribution of large buildings to overall resilience, and the actual urban recovery capacity is therefore underestimated.

Key words: building structure community, seismic resilience, empirical fragility, repair time, repair cost, casualties

中图分类号:

X915.5

周洲, 张炜超, 田谦润, 田勤虎, 于晓辉. 面向城市尺度的群体建筑结构抗震韧性评估:以陕西省为例[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2026, 36(6): 238-245.

Zhou Zhou, Zhang Weichao, Tian Qianrun, Tian Qinhu, Yu Xiaohui. Seismic resilience assessment of group building structures at urban scale: a case study of Shaanxi province[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2026, 36(6): 238-245.

图/表 6

表1

表2

图1

表3

图2

图3

参考文献 24

[1]	翟长海, 岳清瑞, 谢礼立. 抗震韧性城市评估与构建[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2024, 45(5): 1-13.
	Zhai Changhai, Yue Qingrui, Xie Lili. Evaluation and construction of seismic resilient cities[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2024, 45(5): 1-13. doi: 10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2023.0541
[2]	闫佳琦, 陈相兆, 孙柏涛. 地震人员伤亡评估方法及损失评估系统综述[J]. 工程力学, 2021, 38(12): 1-16.
	Yan Jiaqi, Chen Xiangzhao, Sun Baitao. Review of estimation methods and systems used to predict earthquake casualties[J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2021, 38(12): 1-16.
[3]	Krawinkler H, Deierlein G G. Challenges towards achieving earthquake resilience through performance-based earthquake engineering[J]. Performance-Based Seismic Engineering: Vision for An Earthquake Resilient Society, 2014: DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-8875-5_1.
[4]	Bruneau M, Chang S E, Eguchi R T, et al. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2003, 19(4): 733-752. doi: 10.1193/1.1623497
[5]	杭熙茹, 管民生, 张静, 等. 城市结构抗震韧性评估研究新进展[J]. 世界地震工程, 2024, 40(1): 34-48.
	Hang Xiru, Guan Minsheng, Zhang Jing, et al. New progress in seismic resilience assessment of urban structures[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2024, 40(1): 34-48.
[6]	GB/T 38591—2020 建筑抗震韧性评价标准[S].
	GB/T 38591-2020 Standard for seismic resilience assessment of buildings[S].
[7]	Sahar L, Muthukumar S, French S P. Using aerial imagery and GIS in automated building footprint extraction and shape recognition for earthquake risk assessment of urban inventories[J]. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2010, 48(9): 3511-3520. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2010.2047260
[8]	Miles S B, Chang S E. Modeling community recovery from earthquakes[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2006, 22(2): 439-458. doi: 10.1193/1.2192847
[9]	Cardoni A, Borlera S L, Malandrino F, et al. Seismic vulnerability and resilience assessment of urban telecommunication networks[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2022, 77: DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2021.103540.
[10]	Pan Shengjie, Zhao Zeyu, Lim H W, et al. Restored quality of life-based approach (requalife) for urban seismic resilience assessment: case study[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2022, 79: DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103170.
[11]	Xie Lili, Zhao Yonggang, Wen Weiping, et al. From earthquake resistance structure to earthquake resilience city-urban seismic resilience assessment[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2025, 24(1): 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s11803-025-2294-8
[12]	方东平, 李全旺, 李楠, 等. 社区地震安全韧性评估系统及应用示范[J]. 工程力学, 2020, 37(10): 28-44.
	Fang Dongping, Li Quanwang, Li Nan, et al. An evaluation system for community seismic resilience and its application in a typical community[J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2020, 37(10): 28-44.
[13]	顾祥林, 余倩倩, 姜超, 等. 城市土木工程基础设施韧性提升理论与方法[J]. 工程力学, 2023, 40(3): 1-13.
	Gu Xianglin, Yu Qianqian, Jiang Chao, et al. Theory and method of resilience enhancement of urban civil engineering infrastructures[J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2023, 40(3): 1-13.
[14]	Liu Wenyi, Zhou Jie, Li Xiaoli, et al. Urban resilience assessment and its spatial correlation from the multidimensional perspective: a case study of four provinces in north-south seismic belt, China[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2024, 101: DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2023.105109.
[15]	王威, 龚玉涿, 朱峻佚, 等. 城市建筑群抗震韧性集成评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(4): 219-226. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.04.1116
	Wang Wei, Gong Yuzhuo, Zhu Junyi, et al. Integrated evaluation methods of seismic resilience of urban group buildings[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(4): 219-226. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.04.1116
[16]	Xiao Yuanhao, Zhao Xudong, Wu Yipeng, et al. Seismic resilience assessment of urban interdependent lifeline networks[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2022, 218: DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2021.108164.
[17]	郭小东, 任添翼, 王志涛, 等. 基于GIS空间分析的城市抗震韧性评估方法研究[J]. 城市与减灾, 2024(2): 42-49.
	Guo Xiaodong, Ren Tianyi, Wang Zhitao, et al. Research on urban seismic resilience evaluation method based on GIS spatial analysis[J]. City and Disaster Reduction, 2024(2): 42-49.
[18]	FXPC/DZ P—03 建(构)筑物地震灾害隐患等级评定技术规范[S].
	FXPC/DZ P-03 Grading method of the potential hazard of structural earthquake disaster[S].
[19]	陕西省住房和城乡建设厅[EB/OL]. [2024-10-14]. https://js.shaanxi.gov.cn/sy/yw/zjglfw/.
[20]	于晓辉, 吕大刚. 基于地震易损性解析函数的概率地震风险应用研究[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2013, 34(10): 49-56.
	Yu Xiaohui, Lyu Dagang. Application study of probabilistic seismic risk assessment based on analytical functions of seismic fragility[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2013, 34(10): 49-56.
[21]	Zhou Zhou, Xu Hao, Gardoni P, et al. Probabilistic demand models and fragilities for reinforced concrete frame structures subject to mainshock-aftershock sequences[J]. Engineering Structures, 2021, 245: DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112904.
[22]	周洲, 吕大刚, 于晓辉. 基于文献调研的我国建筑结构地震倒塌风险概率评估[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2020, 41(8): 1-18.
	Zhou Zhou, Lyu Dagang, Yu Xiaohui. Probabilistic assessment of seismic collapse risk for building structures in China based on literature investigation[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2020, 41(8):1-18.
[23]	GB 50011—2010 建筑抗震设计规范[S].
	GB 50011-2010 Code for seismic design of buildings[S].
[24]	Lu Xiao, Chen An. Quantitative evaluation and improvement of seismic resilience of a tall frame shear wall structure[J]. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2022, 31(1): DOI:10.1002/tal.1899.

层数	数量/万栋
层数	6度0.05 g	7度0.10 g	7度0.15 g	8度0.2 g
1	9.35	1.15	2.73	1.36
2~3	14.50	3.69	8.24	4.74
4~5	2.17	1.32	1.50	1.01
6~8	2.46	1.23	2.63	1.63
9~12	0.24	0.01	0.32	0.21
13~16	0.12	0.03	0.15	0.08
17~20	0.26	0.10	0.38	0.19
>20	0.26	0.14	0.87	0.61

层数	抗震设防烈度	LS₁	LS₂	LS₃	LS₄
1	6度/未设防	0.06	0.17	0.45	0.60
	7度(0.10 g)	0.07	0.2	0.48	1.23
	7度(0.15 g)	0.08	0.21	0.53	1.30
	8度(0.20 g)	0.1	0.27	0.65	1.50
2~3	6度/未设防	0.06	0.23	0.35	0.42
	7度(0.10 g)	0.1	0.25	0.4	0.95
	7度(0.15 g)	0.12	0.35	0.42	1.00
	8度(0.20 g)	0.13	0.45	0.45	1.20
4~5	6度/未设防	0.05	0.12	0.3	0.41
	7度(0.10 g)	0.1	0.2	0.42	0.70
	7度(0.15 g)	0.1	0.25	0.44	0.85
	8度(0.20 g)	0.15	0.28	0.48	0.99
6~8	6度/未设防	0.05	0.15	0.25	0.50
	7度(0.10 g)	0.06	0.15	0.32	0.92
	7度(0.15 g)	0.06	0.24	0.35	1.00
	8度(0.20 g)	0.08	0.3	0.45	1.30
9~12	6度/未设防	0.06	0.18	0.4	0.53
	7度(0.10 g)	0.08	0.22	0.5	1.00
	7度(0.15 g)	0.09	0.24	0.68	1.05
	8度(0.20 g)	0.1	0.24	0.7	1.15
13~16	6度/未设防	0.05	0.15	0.23	0.54
	7度(0.10 g)	0.1	0.2	0.4	0.77
	7度(0.15 g)	0.1	0.2	0.51	0.80
	8度(0.20 g)	0.12	0.25	0.55	0.85
17~20	6度/未设防	0.03	0.12	0.26	0.40
	7度(0.10 g)	0.1	0.15	0.4	0.75
	7度(0.15 g)	0.1	0.15	0.45	0.76
	8度(0.20 g)	0.15	0.2	0.53	0.90
>20	6度/未设防	0.1	0.2	0.44	0.44
	7度(0.10 g)	0.15	0.25	0.53	0.83
	7度(0.15 g)	0.18	0.25	0.55	0.92
	8度(0.20 g)	0.2	0.4	0.6	1.02

城市	区域抗震RI
城市	RI₀	RI₁	RI₂
西安市	2.02	13.64	84.35
铜川市	1.89	4.56	93.56
宝鸡市	1.36	21.32	77.33
咸阳市	1.82	23.26	74.92
渭南市	2.53	8.36	89.12
延安市	1.55	0.14	98.31
汉中市	1.58	3.06	95.37
榆林市	7.55	0.35	92.11
安康市	0.97	8.76	90.27
商洛市	3.10	13.07	83.83

面向城市尺度的群体建筑结构抗震韧性评估:以陕西省为例

Seismic resilience assessment of group building structures at urban scale: a case study of Shaanxi province

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 24

相关文章 7

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王威, 龚玉涿, 朱峻佚, 夏陈红, 郭小东. 城市建筑群抗震韧性集成评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(4): 219-226.
[2]	陈超, 谭心鑫, 王迪, 李长俊. 油库抗震韧性动态评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(4): 87-92.
[3]	韩鹏, 赵嶷飞. 基于飞行环境建模的UAV地面撞击风险研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(1): 142-147.
[4]	杨杰，朱思诚，刘茂. 基于能力谱的地震建筑破坏造成人员伤亡评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(9): 3-.
[5]	张洁，高惠瑛，刘琦. 基于汶川地震的地震人员伤亡预测模型研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(3): 59-.
[6]	李方文，杨明平，马淞江，李军. 城市污水处理厂安全运行问题探讨[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2009, 19(6): 10-.
[7]	谢旭阳，周心权，谢续程，陈桦. 高层建筑火灾人员疏散和人员伤亡的模拟[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2002, 12(3): 15-.