1932年昌马7(1/2)级地震形变带基本特征及昌马地震成因探讨

本文根据最新的现场考察结果,详细地讨论了1932年昌马7(1/2)级地震形变带的基本特征和昌马断裂最新活动特点。昌马断裂是活动历史悠久,切割地壳较深,现今仍在活动的超岩石圈断裂。我们发现该断裂使一系列山脊和冲沟发生了明显逆时针方向错动,其水平错距可分为四级,反映了昌马断裂至少经历了四次活动,最后一次的水平错距为4.68米,很可能是1932年昌马地震时造成的。昌马地震形变带比较清晰,其展布基本上与昌马断裂相吻合,形变带由地裂缝、鼓包和陡坎构成,并伴有滑坡和山崩现象。形变带组合关系的力学分析均显示了反时针错动,说明第四纪晚期昌马断裂是以左旋张扭性活动为特征。最后本文初步探讨了昌马地震成因模式。     

1932年昌马地震破裂带成因的讨论

本文根据昌马地震破裂带的特征所反映的震区地质块体在空间的运动方式,对前人关于昌马地震的主压应力方向及相应的构造应力场提出了异议。通过讨论,阐述了昌马地震是现今作用于震区的北东东向挤压的区域应力场活动的结果,昌马地震破裂带是北北西向断裂和北西西向断裂在北东东向挤压应力场作用下,分别作兼有右旋的逆冲和近水平左旋扭动的产物。     

1932年昌马地震破裂带及其形成原因的初步探讨

1932年12月25日,我国甘肃省西部玉门镇以南的昌马地区发生了7.6级地震。震中区产生了规模较大的地面破裂带,其中有张性、压性和剪切等多种型式裂缝。本文根据分析各种自然破坏现象的形成条件,结合极震区地质构造特征,对震源区的应力作用和地震成因提出初步看法。 对地震破裂带的分析结果表明,这次地震起主要作用的是南北向的水平挤压作用,并与自白垩纪以来控制着本区构造断裂的区域应力场是一致的。地震破裂带出现的部位与长期活动的昌马构造断裂带一致。因此,我们认为昌马地震的发生是昌马构造断裂带继承性活动的结果。     

山东及附近区域部分中小地震震源机制特征分析

收集了2001~2006年4月山东及周边省记录的20次(其中有8次地震为2003年青岛震群地震)中等地震波形资料。并对上述地震进行了重新定位。根据各台站记录的P波、SV波、SH波初动和它们之间的振幅比,利用Snoke联合计算地震震源机制解的程序,计算了20次地震震源机制解。就所研究的震例来看,断层破裂错动方式以近于走滑错动为主,在NE向断裂上为右旋错动,在NW向断裂上为左旋错动。大部分地震发生在现有断裂上,并且破裂方向与其断裂构造相吻合,这表明,现有断裂构造对中小地震的破裂方式有控制作用。     

中国甘肃昌马断裂带及其现代活动

昌马断裂带是是青藏高原北部一条活动强烈的左旋走滑断裂带。它表现为重力、航磁、地壳厚度的综合异常梯度带，属于断面陡、切割深的超岩石圈断裂。昌马断裂带由１２条长４公里至１８公里不等的不连续的主断层和４条次级断层组成，可划分为东、中、西三大段落。断裂的水平位移和滑动速率具有分段性，全新世以来，东、中、西三段的左旋水平滑动速率分别为４．１毫米／年，２．６毫米／年和１．５毫米／年。北东东、北北西和北西西三个方向断层的位移具有分级特征，不同级别的位移具有良好的同步性。全新世以来北东东、北北西和北西西三个方向断层的水平滑动速率分别为４．１毫米／年、３．８毫米／年和２．７毫米／年。白垩纪以来，昌马断裂呈天平式运动，显示了枢纽断裂运动特征，枢纽轴位于断裂中段。昌马地震震源破裂性质及其反映的震源应力场与地震破裂带的破裂性质及其反映的构造应力场不一致。昌马地震震源机制解反映了北北西～南南东挤压，作用应力近于水平的震源应力场；昌马地震破裂带的变形组合反映了东北～南西挤压的构造应力场。昌马地震破裂带长１２０公里，分为东部正走滑段、中部逆走滑段和西部尾端破裂段，显示了多个水平位移峰值。全新世以来，沿昌马断裂发生了６次强震事件，强震复发     

昌马断裂带古地震活动特征的新认识

昌马断裂位于祁连山西段,是祁连山系列次级断裂与阿尔金断裂东段的重要构造转换断层之一,于1932年发生7.6级地震。位于昌马断裂中东段的臭水柳沟古地震探槽揭示了2次地震事件:一次为1932年昌马地震事件,另一次为(902±44)a B.P.以来发生的事件,这弥补了昌马断裂全新世晚期古地震事件缺失的现状。结合前人的研究结果可确定昌马断裂全新世至少发生7次古地震事件,推测地震复发间隔为1ka左右,部分事件未能揭示。通过探槽揭示的低角度断层、地层变形和部分断裂的地貌特征可知,受阿尔金断裂NEE向挤出的影响,昌马断裂部分段落表现出低角度的逆冲推覆活动,形成其特有的低角度走滑现象,以吸收阿尔金断裂东段的左旋位移。这也说明昌马断裂在承担阿尔金断裂与祁连山西段系列断层的构造转换中起着重要作用。     

汶川地震同震过程中断层间的相互作用及子事件触发

2008年5月12日四川省汶川县发生了MS8.0地震,造成了重大人员伤亡和经济、财产损失。主震发生时,龙门山前山断层从都江堰北部开始错动,且一直破裂到地表。文中利用映秀-北川断裂和灌县-江油断裂2条断层模型,着重研究和深入探讨了灌县-江油断裂的触发机制以及错动时间。基于滑移速率和状态相依赖的摩擦定律,推导出在剪切应力变化率是否为0的2种前提条件下的地震触发新破裂的时间延迟,并将结果用于研究汶川地震是否为同震触发的时间过程上。通过与绵竹清平和汶川卧龙台站的三分量强地面运动观测资料计算出的时间延迟对比,得到了比较一致的结果,发现汶川地震中映秀-北川断裂和灌县-江油断裂并不是同时错动的,而是映秀-北川破裂产生的动态地震波(应力波)触发了灌县-江油断裂,并造成了几秒到十几秒的触发延迟。     

基于GPS同震位移场约束反演2008年5.12汶川大地震破裂空间分布

2008年5月12日发生在四川汶川的大地震造成映秀—北川断裂和灌县—江油断裂同时破裂,分别形成了240多公里和70多公里的地表破裂带.本文以GPS观测获得的同震位移场为约束,反演地震破裂的空间分布.反演结果显示映秀—北川主破裂带倾向北西,沿破裂带的走向从南到北倾角逐渐变大,破裂断层的平均宽度在10~18 km左右.破裂断层的错动在南段以逆冲为主,在北段走滑分量逐步加大,右旋走滑成为断层破裂的主要特征.断层破裂最大段落错动量分别达到了7.8 m和7.4 m,恰好对应这次地震中地表破坏最为严重的映秀和北川地区.本次地震释放地震矩6.70×10²⁰N·m,相应矩震级M_w=7.9.     

昌马断裂的运动方式与1932年昌马地震

本文从断裂的沉积、地貌和变形特征方面研究了昌马断裂的运动方式。结果表明,昌马断裂是一条枢纽断裂,枢纽轴位于断裂中段。提出了昌马断裂的力学模式,认为昌马地震是在北东～南西向水平挤压应力产生的左旋剪切应力和垂直断裂面的正压力联合作用下,昌马断裂枢纽轴部的介质强化,应力集中的结果     

道孚6.9级地震的地质构造背景与发震构造条件分析

本文以1981年1月24日道孚6.9级地震的宏观考察资料为基础,从震区地质构造条件、近代地壳运动与构造应力场特征出发,结合这次地震地裂缝展布特征、等烈度线形态、地震时的地面运动、余震序列及震源错动特征及地壳形变资料的综合分析,认为此6.9级地震是在区域性近东西向的压应力作用下,使活动强烈的鲜水河断裂再次发生左旋错动的结果。并着重讨论了道孚地震区的闭锁条件以及鲜水河断裂北面地震的迁移过程     

2017年8月8日四川九寨沟7.0级地震InSAR同震形变场及断层滑动分布反演

基于InSAR技术,利用欧空局升降轨Sentinel-1A/IW宽幅数据,获取了2017年8月8日四川九寨沟7.0级地震InSAR同震形变场,并以升降轨InSAR观测结果为约束,反演了断层滑动分布,基于三种不同接收断层计算了同震库仑应力变化.结果表明,同震形变场发生在塔藏断裂、岷江断裂和虎牙断裂交汇的三角地带,升降轨干涉位移均显示本次地震的形变场影响范围约为50 km×50 km,形变场长轴方向为NW向,升降轨观测的形变量相反,反映断层运动性质以走滑运动为主,升降轨数据观测得到的最大LOS （Line of Sight,视线向）形变量分别为~22 cm和~14 cm.非对称形变场反映出断层两侧的运动差异.反演结果显示,最大滑动量约为1 m,平均滑动角为-9°,矩震级为M_W6.5,地震破裂主要集中在地下1~15 km深度范围内,但整体而言本次地震破裂较为充分,基本将该区域1973年及1976年4次 > M_W6.0地震的破裂空区完全破裂.考虑到塔藏断裂和虎牙断裂的运动性质,可初步判定发震断层为虎牙断裂北侧延伸分支.基于三种不同接收断层模型的同震库仑应力变化计算结果反映出该区域以应力释放为主,进一步触发较大走滑型余震的可能性不大.     

1999年台湾集集大地震的地表断层破裂特征

野外考察结果表明 ,1999年 9月 2 1日台湾集集大地震是由车笼埔断层发生逆冲作用造成的。地震产生的地表破裂长约 80km ,具有明显的挤压逆断层特征 ,其活动方式为具左旋性质的逆倾滑动。实测逆冲断层以 30°～ 50°的角向西北逆冲而上。断层的垂直位移量 ,南段约 2～ 3m ,北段约 3～ 8m ;断层的水平位移量 ,南段 0～ 3m ,北段 3～ 5m ;垂直断层的水平缩短量 ,南段 2～ 3m ,北段 3～ 6m。从台湾西部麓山带的地质构造剖面分析 ,地震震源恰好位于台湾西部麓山带中生代基底与其上的沉积盖层的界面的深度 ,而西部麓山带第三纪地层和其下的基底的分离面为一滑动面 (decolle ment)。在菲律宾海板块的挤压作用下 ,沿该区中生代基底之上滑动面的错动导致了地震的发生     

THE SOURCE PARAMETERS AND SEISMOTECTONIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2017 ML4.4 LINCHENG EARTHQUAKE

At 3:05, September 4, 2017, an M_L4.4 earthquake occurred in Lincheng County, Xingtai City, Hebei Province, which was felt obviously by surrounding areas. Approximately 60km away from the hypocenter of Xingtai M_S7.2 earthquake in 1966, this event is the most noticeable earthquake in this area in recent years. On the one hand, people are still shocked by the 1966 Xingtai earthquake that caused huge disaster, on the other hand, Lincheng County is lack of strong earthquakes. Therefore, this quake has aroused widespread concerns by the government, society and seismologists. It is necessary to clarify whether the seismogenic structure of this event is consistent with the previous seismicity and whether it has any new implications for the seismic activity and seismic hazard in this region. Therefore, it is of great significance to study its seismogenic mechanism for understanding the earthquake activity in Xingtai region where a M_S7.2 earthquake had occurred in 1966. In this study, the Lincheng earthquake and its aftershocks are relocated using the multi-step locating method, and the focal mechanism and focal depth are determined by the "generalized Cut and Paste"(gCAP)method. The reliability of the results is analyzed based on the data of Hebei regional seismic network. In order to better constrain the focal depth, the depth phase sPL fitting method is applied to the relocation of focal depth. The inversion and constraint results show that aftershocks are mainly distributed along NE direction and dip to SE direction as revealed by depth profiles. Focal depths of aftershocks are concentrated in the depths of 6.5~8.2km with an average of about 7km. The best double-couple solution of the mainshock is 276°, 69° and -40° for strike, dip and slip angle for nodal plane I and 23°, 53° and -153° for nodal plane Ⅱ, respectively, revealing that it is a strike-slip event with a small amount of normal-fault component. The initial rupture depth of mainshock is about 7.5km obtained by the relocation while the centroid depth is 6km derived from gCAP method which was also verified by the seismic depth phase sPL observed by several stations, indicating the earthquake is ruptured from deep to shallow. Combined with the research results on regional geological structure and the seismic sequence relocation results, it is concluded that the nodal plane Ⅱ is the seismogenic fault plane of this earthquake. There are several active faults around the hypocenter of Lincheng earthquake sequence, however, none of the known faults on the current understanding is completely consistent with the seismogenic fault. To determine the seismogenic mechanism, the lucubrated research of the M_S7.2 Xingtai earthquake in 1966 could provide a powerful reference. The seismic tectonic characteristics of the 1966 Xingtai earthquake sequence could be summarized as follows:There are tensional fault in the shallow crust and steep dip hidden fault in the middle and lower crust, however, the two faults are not connected but separated by the shear slip surfaces which are widely distributed in the middle crust; the seismic source is located between the hidden fault in the lower crust and the extensional fault in the upper crust; the earthquake began to rupture in the deep dip fault in the mid-lower crust and then ruptured upward to the extensional fault in the shallow crust, and the two fault systems were broken successively. From the earthquake rupture revealed by the seismic sequence location, the Lincheng earthquake also has the semblable feature of rupturing from deep to shallow. However, due to the much smaller magnitude of this event than that of the 1966 earthquake, the accumulated stress was not high enough to tear the fracture of the detachment surface whose existence in Lincheng region was confirmed clearly by the results of Lincheng-Julu deep reflection seismology and reach to the shallower fault. Therefore, by the revelation of the seismogenic mechanism of the 1966 Xingtai earthquake, the seismogenic fault of Lincheng earthquake is presumed to be a concealed fault possessing a potential of both strike-slip and small normal faulting component and located below the detachment surface in Lincheng area. The tectonic significance indicated by this earthquake is that the event was a stress adjustment of the deep fault and did not lead to the rupture of the shallow fault. Therefore, this area still has potential seismic hazard to a certain extent.     

The Lemnos 8 January 2013 (M w = 5.7) earthquake: fault slip,aftershock properties and static stress transfer modeling in the north Aegean Sea

We investigate mainshock slip distribution and aftershock activity of the 8 January 2013 M _w?=?5.7 Lemnos earthquake, north Aegean Sea. We analyse the seismic waveforms to better understand the spatio-temporal characteristics of earthquake rupture within the seismogenic layer of the crust. Peak slip values range from 50 to 64 cm and mean slip values range from 10 to 12 cm. The slip patches of the event extend over an area of dimensions 16?×?16 km². We also relocate aftershock catalog locations to image seismic fault dimensions and test earthquake transfer models. The relocated events allowed us to identify the active faults in this area of the north Aegean Sea by locating two, NE–SW linear patterns of aftershocks. The aftershock distribution of the mainshock event clearly reveals a NE–SW striking fault about 40 km offshore Lemnos Island that extends from 2 km up to a depth of 14 km. After the mainshock most of the seismic activity migrated to the east and to the north of the hypocenter due to (a) rupture directivity towards the NE and (b) Coulomb stress transfer. A stress inversion analysis based on 14 focal mechanisms of aftershocks showed that the maximum horizontal stress is compressional at N84°E. The static stress transfer analysis for all post-1943 major events in the North Aegean shows no evidence for triggering of the 2013 event. We suggest that the 2013 event occurred due to tectonic loading of the North Aegean crust.     

九寨沟M_s7.0地震的InSAR观测及发震构造分析

2017年8月8日四川省九寨沟县发生M_s7.0地震.本文基于Sentinel-1 SAR影像,利用InSAR技术获取了此次地震的同震形变场,反演获得同震滑动分布,计算了同震位错对余震分布和周边断层的静态库仑应力变化,并对发震构造进行了分析讨论.结果表明:①InSAR同震形变场显示,九寨沟地震造成地表形变最大量级约为20 cm(雷达视线方向),同震形变存在非对称性分布特征.②同震位错以左旋走滑为主,主要发生在4~16 km深度,最大滑动量约为77 cm,位于9 km深处.反演得到的矩震级为Mw6.46.同震错动未破裂到地表.③大部分余震发生在库仑应力增加区.此次地震增加了震中周边地区一些断裂的库仑应力,如东昆仑断裂带东段、龙日坝断裂、虎牙断裂等.④东昆仑断裂东段的未来地震危险性值得关注.⑤九寨沟地震的发震断层为树正断裂,可能是虎牙断裂的北西延伸隐伏部分,此次地震是巴颜喀拉块体南东向运动受到华南块体的强烈阻挡过程中发生的一次典型构造事件.     

云南活动性断裂带的结构变异与孕震体构造的空间关系

中国的强震主要发生在一些板内大型走滑断裂带上,地震的破裂基本上是以走滑型破裂为特征。在这些活动性的走滑断裂带上形成的孕震体构造与该走滑断裂结构在空间的变化有关,并且表现出几种主要的变异形式。结合西南地区地震构造的实例,本文剖析了这几种结构变异形式,阐明了孕震体构造存在的空间机制。本文从地震与构造丛集相关及其所具有的分维特征入手,展开了对孕震区断裂结构变异特征的识别和孕震体空间机制的探讨,表述了一条活动性大断裂必须由若干次级断裂和无数中小断裂的空间组合,才能形成孕震体的必要条件。     

利用InSAR获取2020年新疆于田Mw6.3地震同震形变场与断层滑动分布反演

本文基于InSAR技术, 利用欧空局Sentinel-1A/ B升降轨SAR数据, 提取了2020年6月26日新疆于田M_W6.3地震的同震形变场。 利用升、 降轨同震形变场约束, 分别采用MPSO算法和Bayesian方法反演此次地震发震断层均匀滑动的几何参数, 并进行对比。 然后采用SDM方法获得发震断层非均匀滑动分布, 并分析了同震库仑应力变化及其对周边断层的应力扰动。 结果表明, 同震形变场以NS向为长轴, 总体呈现西部沉降而东部隆升的特点, 而且隆升量明显小于沉降量; 滑动分布反演表明发震断层的平均滑动量为0.13 m, 平均滑动角为-104.56°, 此次地震为典型的正断破裂事件, 最大滑动量约0.55 m, 最大滑动量处滑动角为-105.2°, 位于断层倾向深度14.42 km, 释放的地震矩能量约3.65×10¹⁸ N·m, 相当于矩震级M_W6.3; 同震库仑应力变化对西部琼木孜塔格断层、 硝尔库勒南缘断层等起到应力卸载作用, 对北部的木孜鲁克—鲸鱼湖断层起到应力加载作用, 结合同震库仑应力对周围断层的扰动情况, 此次地震可能对琼木孜塔格断裂带和木孜鲁克—鲸鱼湖断裂带的西端影响较大。     

Coseismic surface rupture characteristics and earthquake damage analysis of the eastern end of the 2021 MS 7.4 Madoi (Qinghai) earthquake

At 02:04 on May 22, 2021, an M_S 7.4 earthquake occurred in Madoi County in Qinghai Province, China. This earthquake is the largest seismic event in China since the 2008 M_S 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake. Thus, it is critical to investigate surface deformation and damage in time to accurately understand the seismogenic structure of the Madoi earthquake and the seismogenic capacity of the blocks in this region. This study focuses on the Xuema Village, located at the eastern end of the coseismic surface ruptures produced by the event, and assesses the deformation and seismic damage in this area based on field surveys, UAV photogrammetry, and ground penetrating radar (GPR). The results indicate that the rupture scale is substantially smaller at the eastern end of the rupture zone compared to other segments. En echelon type shear tensile fractures are concentrated in a width range of 50–100 m, and the width of single fractures ranges from 20 to 30 cm. In contrast, the degree of seismic damage significantly increases at this site. All of the brick and timber houses are damaged or collapsed, while the steel frame structures and the color steel houses are slightly damaged. More than 80% of the bridge decks on the Changma River Bridge collapse, similar to the terraces along the Youerqu and Changma Rivers and the cut slopes of Provincial Highway S205. We infer that the seismogenic fault of the Madoi earthquake exerts a tail effect in this segment. The tension zone has led to a reduction at the eastern end of the rupture zone, causing shaking damage. Local topography and buildings without earthquake-resistant construction along the strike of the rupture zone have undergone different levels of seismic damage.     

2010年4月玉树M_S7.3地震序列的断层结构

利用双差定位方法对玉树地震序列2010年4月14日至10月31日间发生的ML≥1.0地震进行双差定位,得到1545个地震的重定位结果.综合分析地震双差定位结果和玉树地震序列中强地震震源机制解,发现玉树MS7.3地震发震构造由北西向和北东东向两条相交断层组成,主震发生在北西走向的甘孜—玉树断裂带上,5月29日的MS5.9余震序列发生在北东东走向的一条隐伏断裂上,两条断裂均接近直立.甘孜—玉树断裂是羌塘地块和巴彦喀拉地块的构造边界,由于羌塘地块和巴颜喀拉地块的差异运动使甘孜—玉树断裂强耦合段应力高度积累,在应变能超过岩石强度时破裂失稳发生了MS7.3地震.主震断层的左旋滑动导致北东东向断层的正应力减小,库伦应力增加,45天后触发了MS5.9余震序列的活动.