Seismological aspects of the 27 June 2015 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake and its sequence of aftershocks

On 27 June 2015, a moderate earthquake with magnitude Mb 5.2 struck the Gulf of Aqaba near Nuweiba City. This event was instrumentally recorded by the Egyptian National Seismic Network (ENSN) and many other international seismological centres. The event was felt in all the cities on the Gulf of Aqaba, as well as Suez City, Hurghada City, the greater Cairo Metropolitan Area, Israel, Jordan and the north-western part of Saudi Arabia. No casualties were reported, however. Approximately 95 aftershocks with magnitudes ranging from 0.7 to 4.2 were recorded by the ENSN following the mainshock. In the present study, the source characteristics of both the mainshock and the aftershocks were estimated using the near-source waveform data recorded by the very broadband stations of the ENSN, and these were validated by the P-wave polarity data from short period stations. Our analysis reveals that an estimated seismic moment of 0.762?×?10¹⁷ Nm was released, corresponding to a magnitude of Mw 5.2, a focal depth of 14 km, a fault radius of 0.72 km and a rupture area of approximately 1.65 km². Monitoring the sequence of aftershocks reveals that they form a cluster around the mainshock and migrated downwards in focal depth towards the west. We compared the results we obtained with the published results from the international seismological centres. Our results are more realistic and accurate, in particular with respect to the epicenteral location, magnitude and fault plane solution which are in accordance with the hypocentre distribution of the aftershocks.     

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.     

The April 24, 2013 Changning M s4.8 earthquake: a felt earthquake that occurred in Paleozoic sediment

The dense broadband seismic network provides more high-quality waveform that is helpful to improve constraint focal depth of shallow earthquake. Many shallow earthquakes occurring in sediment were regarded as induced events. In Sichuan basin, gas industry and salt mining are dependent on fluid injection technique that triggers microseismicity. We adopted waveform inversion method with regional records to obtain focal mechanism of an M _s4.8 earthquake at Changning. The result suggested that the Changning earthquake occurred at a ESE thrust fault, and its focal depth was about 3 km. The depth phases including teleseismic pP phase and regional sPL phase shows that the focal depth is about 2 km. The strong, short-period surface wave suggests that this event is a very shallow earthquake. The amplitude ratio between Rayleigh wave and direct S wave was also used to estimate the source depth of the mainshock. The focal depth (2–4 km) is far less than the depth of the sedimentary layer thickness (6–8 km) in epicentral region. It is close to the depth of fluid injection of salt mining, which may imply that this event was triggered by the industrial activity.     

2016年1月21日青海门源MS6.4余震序列重定位和主震震源机制解

2016年1月21日01时13分13.0秒（北京时间）,青海省海北州门源县发生M_S6.4地震.为了更好地认识这次地震的发震构造,本文利用青海省地震台网和甘肃省地震台网的省级固定地震台站及部分流动地震台站记录到的波形资料,通过重新拾取震相和联合HYPOINVERSE 2000与HypoDD定位方法,对2016年1月21日青海门源地震序列M_L≥1.8的189个地震事件进行了重新定位,并采用gCAP方法分别反演了主震的双力偶机制解和全矩张量解. 定位结果显示,主震位置为37.67°N、101.61°E,震源深度为11.98 km;余震序列展布方向为SE和NW两个方向、长度约16 km,震源深度优势分布为4~14 km,断层面倾向为SW方向. 利用gCAP方法得到的矩心深度在8~9 km之间. 结合野外地质调查结果,认为该次地震事件为一次逆冲型事件,其发震断层可能为北西向冷龙岭断裂与北西向民乐—大马营断裂之间的一条盲断层,推测由于印度板块与欧亚板块的碰撞挤压使得青藏高原北缘与阿拉善地块之间的东西向挤压而造成的断层应力失稳,从而形成门源地震.     

Focal depths and mechanisms of Tohoku-Oki aftershocks from teleseismic P wave modeling

Aftershocks of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki great earthquake have a wide range of focal depths and fault plane mechanisms. We constrain the focal depths and focal mechanisms of 69 aftershocks with M _w > 5.4 by modeling the waveforms of teleseismic P and its trailing near-surface reflections pP and sP. We find that the “thrust events” are within 10 km from the plate interface. The dip angles of these thrust events increase with depth from ~5° to ~25°. The “non-thrust events” vary from 60 km above to 40 km below the plate interface. Normal and strike-slip events within the overriding plate point to redistribution of stress following the primary great earthquake; however, due to the spatially variable stress change in the Tohoku-Oki earthquake, an understanding of how the mainshock affected the stresses that led to the aftershocks requires accurate knowledge of the aftershock location.     

2008年8月30日攀枝花-会理6.1级地震序列 ML≥4.0事件的震源机制解

针对2008年8月30日在四川攀枝花-会理发生的M_s6.1地震序列,本研究基于四川和云南两省数字地震台网的宽频带波形记录,采用CAP方法反演了该序列主震及M_L≥4.0余震的震源机制解.结果显示:主震震源机制解的两个主应力轴仰角小于10°,其中,主压力轴方位为140°;节面之一走向185°、西倾83°、滑动角5°,显示左旋走滑略兼逆冲分量的断层作用性质.结合余震、烈度分布以及震区的活动构造,判定该节面代表了主震的发震断层面,相应的发震断层应是穿越震区的近南北向红格断裂(南段).本研究还获得主震震源机制解的最佳拟合误差深度为10 km,与该事件的定位结果相一致.该序列中6次M_L≥4.0余震也具有与主震类似的震源机制解.分析初步表明:空间上,2008年攀枝花-会理M_s6.1地震序列的震源机制解与研究区内更早地震的震源机制解具有良好的协调性,反映了该序列是在川滇地块SE-SSE向水平运动的背景下、沿近S-N向红格断裂发生左旋走滑略兼逆冲运动的结果.     

Segmented seismicity of the M w 6.2 Baladeh earthquake sequence (Alborz Mountains, Iran) revealed from regional moment tensors

The M _w 6.2 Baladeh earthquake occurred on 28 May 2004 in the Alborz Mountains, northern Iran. This earthquake was the first strong shock in this intracontinental orogen for which digital regional broadband data are available. The Baladeh event provides a rare opportunity to study fault geometry and ongoing deformation processes using modern seismological methods. A joint inversion for hypocentres and a velocity model plus a surface-wave group dispersion curve analysis were used to obtain an adapted velocity model, customised for mid- and long-period waveform modelling. Based on the new velocity model, regional waveform data of the mainshock and larger aftershocks (M _w ?≥3.3) were inverted for moment tensors. For the Baladeh mainshock, this included inversion for kinematic parameters. All analysed earthquakes show dominant thrust mechanisms at depths between 14 and 26 km, with NW–SE striking fault planes. The mainshock ruptured a 28° south-dipping area of 24 × 21 km along a north-easterly direction. The rupture plane of the mainshock does not coincide with the aftershock distribution, neither in map view nor with respect to depth. The considered aftershocks form two main clusters. The eastern cluster is associated with the mainshock. The western cluster does not appear to be connected with the rupture plane of the mainshock but, instead, indicates a second activated fault plane dipping at 85° towards the north.     

A high-resolution aftershock seismicity image of the 2002 Sultandaği-Çay earthquake (Mw = 6.2), Turkey

A moderate-size earthquake (Mw = 6.2) occurred on 3 February 2002 (07:11:28 GMT) in the Sultanda??-Çay region of southwest Turkey. The mainshock was followed by a strong aftershock of Mw = 6.0 just 2 h after the mainshock, at 09:26:49 GMT. A temporary seismic network of 27 vertical component seismometers was installed to monitor aftershock activity. One thousand sixty nine aftershocks (0.2 < ML < 3.3) were recorded during the period from 5 to 10 February 2002. We analyzed the P and S arrival times and P wave first motion data to obtain high-quality hypocenters and focal mechanisms, which revealed fine details of the fault zone. We infer that the mainshock has ruptured a segment of the Sultanda? Fault Zone that is approximately 37 km long and 7 km wide at depth. The average slip over the rupture plane during the mainshock is estimated to be 32 cm. The linear distribution of the aftershocks and the location of the mainshock epicenter suggest that rupture has initiated in the eastern bending of the fault and propagated unilaterally to the west. The majority of fault plane solutions indicate E–W to ESE–WNW striking oblique–normal faulting mechanisms with an average dip angle of 62° N ± 10° . The high-resolution aftershock seismicity image also shows that faulting involved a complex array of synthetic and possibly antithetic structures during the evolution of the aftershock sequence. The steady increase of the b value towards the west implies that the highest moment release of the mainshock occurred to the west of the epicenter. The study clearly shows the activation of the WNW–ESE-trending Sultanda? Fault Zone along the southern margin of the Ak?ehir-Afyon Graben (AAG). The westernmost end of the aftershock activity corresponds to a structurally complex zone distinct from the main rupture. It is characterized by both ENE–WSW- and NNE–SSW-trending oblique-slip normal faulting mechanisms, the latter being associated with the NNE–SSW-trending Karam?k Graben. The intersection of these two grabens, AAG and Karam?k Graben, provides abundant faults available for failure in this region. The occurrence pattern of large events in recent years indicates a possible migration of earthquakes from east to west. Thus, we conclude that this has an important implication for earthquake hazard for the city of Afyon, which lies along the same fault line and only 20 km west of the termination point of the aftershock zone.     

由初至P震相重新定位2017年九寨沟地震序列的主震与ML≥3.0余震并分析发震构造

综合利用区域台站和流动台站(近台)的记录,基于初至P震相重新测定了2017年九寨沟序列M_S7.0主震和M_L≥3.0余震的震源位置,并利用较高精度的定位结果分析余震分布与地震构造的关系,解释发震断裂带的结构.获得的新认识有:(1)九寨沟主震震源深度为16km,位于余震带中段的南缘;余震主要分布深度为4～17km.(2)沿余震带的走向,余震分布与主震同震位错大小的分布明显相关.余震带中段8～16km深度存在的余震稀疏区与同震位错的高值区相吻合,应是发震断裂带主凹凸体的部位,也是主震时应变释放较充分的部位;余震带南东段10～18km深度的余震密集区对应了同震位错的亏损区之一,三次M_L≥5.0余震都发生于此;余震带西北段在5～10km之下既缺少余震,又属同震位错的亏损区,可能与那里多条断裂的交汇或合并造成的构造复杂性有关;余震带中-北西段3～5km深度的也缺少余震,也对应了浅部的同震位错亏损区.(3)证实了九寨沟地震的发震构造为虎牙断裂带北段,同时新揭示出发震断裂带表现为由主断裂和分支断裂构成的、向上分叉的花状结构,尺度约为4.5km宽(最大)、35km长,主断裂朝SW陡倾.这些反映主震破裂可能不只受控于单一的断裂,而有可能是沿主断裂发生主破裂,而沿分支断裂发生次要破裂.另外,本文对发震断裂带结构的分段解释,是遵循构造地质学原理去综合震源排列、震源机制解、地表断层已知位置、相邻剖面断层解释结果等信息的分析结果,而不仅仅依据余震的密集分布进行推断.     

2014年新疆于田MS7.3地震序列重定位及其发震构造初步研究

2014年2月12日在新疆于田县发生了M_S7.3地震,主震前一天在震区发生了M_S5.4前震,震后余震活动频繁,由于震区台站十分稀疏和不均匀、地壳速度结构复杂,台网常规定位结果精度有限,很难从中获得序列的空间分布特征和活动趋势的正确认识.本文首先利用位于震区附近的于田地震台5年记录的远震波形数据,采用接收函数方法研究了震区附近的地壳结构,建立了震源区的地壳速度模型.在此基础上,联合震相到时和方位角对2014年于田M_S7.3地震序列(从2014年02月11日-2014年04月30日,共计577次地震)进行了重新绝对定位.结果显示,(1) 重定位后的前震和主震震中位置明显向地表破裂带及其附近的阿尔金分支断裂(南肖尔库勒断裂和阿什库勒-肖尔库勒断裂)靠近,两者相距5.4 km,主震位置为36.076°N、82.576°E,震源深度为22 km, 前震位置为36.055°N、82.522°E,震源深度为19 km;(2) 本文重定位结果显示,余震序列沿NEE-SWW展布,优势分布长度约73 km、宽度约16 km,平均震源深度为14.8 km,其中77%的余震分布在地表破裂带的西南端,这部分余震中少数沿阿什库勒-肖尔库勒断裂分布,绝大多数沿北东东向的南肖尔库勒断裂分布,位于地表破裂带东北端的余震沿阿什库勒-肖尔库勒断裂分布,但发生在地表破裂带的余震极少;重定位后,位于地表破裂带西南侧的震中分布由台网目录的近南北向变为北东向,与地表破裂带、南肖尔库勒断裂和阿什库勒-肖尔库勒断裂走向一致;(3) 沿重定位剖面的地震分布,可推断位于地表破裂带西南段的南肖尔库勒断裂与位于北东段的阿什库勒-肖尔库勒断裂倾向反向,南肖尔库勒断裂的倾向为SE,阿什库勒-肖尔库勒断裂的倾向为NW,这与本次地震野外考察得到的断裂性质一致.综合重定位结果、地表破裂带分布、震源机制解、南肖尔库勒断裂和阿什库勒-肖尔库勒断裂的性质认为,2014年于田M_S7.3地震的发震构造为阿尔金断裂西南尾段的两条分支断裂——南肖尔库勒断裂和阿什库勒-肖尔库勒断裂.     

利用余震震中分析芦山MS7.0 地震发震构造

对2013年4月20日芦山M_S7.0地震主震震中周边29个地震台记录到的震后一年多的微、 小余震,利用Hypo71绝对定位方法进行定位,获得了约1960次地震的震源位置. 结果显示,芦山地震余震在平面上主要沿双石—大川分支断裂及其周边分布,在垂向上主要集中在大约5—20 km深度之间的两条余震交叉带上. 其中一条余震带倾向NW,倾角在12 km左右深度发生变化,浅部倾角较陡,该余震带延伸至地表与双石—大川分支断裂和新开店断裂之间的推测隐伏断裂位置相重合; 另一条余震带倾向SE,其延伸至地表的位置与双石—大川断裂非常接近,但与该断裂倾向相反. 主震震源位置与两条余震带相交的位置接近,且芦山地震主震的两个节面产状与这两条余震带的深部几何形态正好对应, 表明芦山地震主震可能是两条余震带所对应的两条断裂同时活动的结果.      

2014年2月12日新疆于田MS7.3级地震主震及余震序列重定位研究

本研究采用基于贝叶斯理论的绝对定位方法对2014年2月12日新疆于田M_S7.3级地震进行绝对定位,得到震中位置为82.56°E、36.04°N、震源深度为12.3 km;采用双差定位法对254个地震序列进行相对定位,得到101个重定位事件.结果显示,主震位于阿尔金断裂带西南端多个分支断裂的交汇处.余震震源主要分布范围在5~10 km深度之间,主震处余震代表的断层面较为陡立,且余震序列呈现出明显的西南向纯单侧扩展模式.沿阿尔金断裂带主震的北东向民丰震区本次地震后显示一个明显的地震丛集,说明本次主震对该震区具有触发作用.     

High-precision relocation of the aftershock sequence of the January 8, 2022, MS6.9 Menyuan earthquake

The 2022 Menyuan M_S6.9 earthquake, which occurred on January 8, is the most destructive earthquake to occur near the Lenglongling (LLL) fault since the 2016 Menyuan M_S6.4 earthquake. We relocated the mainshock and aftershocks with phase arrival time observations for three days after the mainshock from the Qinghai Seismic Network using the double-difference method. The total length and width of the aftershock sequence are approximately 32 km and 5 km, respectively, and the aftershocks are mainly concentrated at a depth of 7–12 km. The relocated sequence can be divided into 18 km west and 13 km east segments with a boundary approximately 5 km east of the mainshock, where aftershocks are sparse. The east and west fault structures revealed by aftershock locations differ significantly. The west fault strikes EW and inclines to the south at a 71º–90º angle, whereas the east fault strikes 133º and has a smaller dip angle. Elastic strain accumulates at conjunctions of faults with different slip rates where it is prone to large earthquakes. Based on surface traces of faults, the distribution of relocated earthquake sequence and surface ruptures, the mainshock was determined to have occurred at the conjunction of the Tuolaishan (TLS) fault and LLL fault, and the west and east segments of the aftershock sequence were on the TLS fault and LLL fault, respectively. Aftershocks migrate in the early and late stages of the earthquake sequence. In the first 1.5 h after the mainshock, aftershocks expand westward from the mainshock. In the late stage, seismicity on the northeast side of the east fault is higher than that in other regions. The migration rate of the west segment of the aftershock sequence is approximately 4.5 km/decade and the afterslip may exist in the source region.     

2014年11月22日康定M6.3级地震序列发震构造分析

2014年11月22日在NW向鲜水河断裂带中南段四川康定县发生M6.3级地震,11月25日在该地震震中东南约10km处再次发生M5.8级地震.基于中国国家数字地震台网和四川区域数字地震台网资料,采用多阶段定位方法对本次康定M6.3级地震序列进行了重新定位;利用gCAP(generalized Cut And Paste)矩张量反演方法获得了M6.3和M5.8级地震的震源机制解与矩心深度,分析了本次地震序列的发震构造,并结合历史强震破裂时空分布和2001年以来小震重新定位结果,对鲜水河断裂带中段强震危险性进行了初步探讨.获得的主要结果如下:(1)M6.3级主震震中位于101.69°E、30.27°N,震源初始破裂深度约10km,矩心深度9km;M5.8级地震震中位于101.73°E、30.18°N,初始破裂深度约11km,矩心深度9km.gCAP矩张量反演结果揭示这两次地震双力偶分量占主导,M6.3级地震的最佳双力偶解节面Ⅰ走向143°/倾角82°/滑动角-9°,节面Ⅱ走向234°/倾角81°/滑动角-172°.M5.8级地震最佳双力偶解节面Ⅰ走向151°/倾角83°/滑动角-6°,节面Ⅱ走向242°/倾角84°/滑动角-173°.依据余震分布长轴展布与断裂走向,判定节面Ⅰ为发震断层面,M6.3和M5.8级地震均为带有微小正断分量的左旋走滑型地震.(2)序列中重新定位的459个地震平均震源深度约9km,地震主要集中分布在6~11km深度区间,余震基本发生在M6.3和M5.8级地震震源上部.依据余震密集区展布范围,推测本次康定地震的震源体尺度长约30km、宽约4km、深度范围约6km.M6.3级主震震源附近的余震稀疏区可能是一个较大的凹凸体(asperity),在主震中能量得以充分释放.(3)最初3天的余震主要分布在M6.3级地震NW侧;而M5.8级地震之后的余震主要集中在其震中附近.M6.3级地震以及最初3天的绝大部分余震发生在倾角约82°近直立的NW走向色拉哈断裂上;M5.8级地震与其后的多数余震发生在倾角约83°近直立的NW走向折多塘断裂北端走向向北偏转部位,M5.8级地震可能是M6.3级地震触发相邻的折多塘断裂活动所致.(4)康定M6.3与M5.8级地震发生在鲜水河断裂带乾宁与康定之间的色拉哈强震破裂空段,本次地震破裂尺度较小,尚不足以填补该强震空段.色拉哈段以及相邻的乾宁段7级地震平静时间均已超过其平均复发周期估值,未来几年存在发生7级地震的危险.康定M6.3级地震序列基本填补了震前存在于塔公与康定之间的深部小震空区,未来强震发生在塔公至松林口段深部小震稀疏区内的可能性很大.     

The aftershock sequence of the 5 August 2014 Orkney earthquake (M<Subscript>L</Subscript> 5.5), South Africa

More than 1000 aftershocks were recorded within a month after the occurrence of the M_L 5.5, 5 August 2014 Orkney earthquake. The events were relocated using the double difference method as part of an effort to identify the fault which might be the source of the events. A north–south trend of seismicity was revealed by the relocated events, with a diffuse cluster to the north of the main event. A depth profile shows these two clusters: one at a depth of about 2 km to the north of the main event and the other at depth between 3 and 6 km south of the main event. Focal mechanism solutions of 18 aftershocks were determined using first motion polarities from seismic stations of the Council for Geoscience cluster networks. Stress inversion analysis results from the focal mechanism solutions show a dominant extensional stress field in the region; the main event had a strike-slip fault plane solution. This is consistent with the regional stress field which is predominantly related to the East African rift system. It is possible that the occurrence of the main event triggered seismicity on shallower faults within the mining horizons oriented in a different direction to the fault on which the main event occurred. The area has a complex heterogeneous faulting structure as indicated by the observed low p values and complex focal mechanism solutions.     

2020年7月12日唐山古冶MS 5.1地震震源参数

利用河北及邻区地震台网提供的震相观测报告,使用双差定位方法,对2020年7月12日唐山古冶M_S 5.1地震序列进行重新定位,并基于部分地震台站记录的波形资料,采用近震全波形方法,反演得到主震震源机制解。精定位结果显示,此次地震序列展布长度约8 km,余震自主震位置向SW扩展,震源深度优势分布范围在10—18 km,发震断层面较陡,倾向SE。震源机制解显示,主震为一次走滑型事件,结合序列展布形态和地震活动背景,SW—NE向近似直立节面为可能发震断层面,与1976年唐山M_S 7.8主震断层特征基本一致。综上所述,古冶M_S 5.1地震为唐山M_S 7.8地震的又一次余震,属唐山老震区正常地震活动。     

The 20 April 2013 Lushan,Sichuan, mainshock,and its aftershock sequence: tectonic implications

Using the double-difference relocation algorithm, we relocated the 20 April 2013 Lushan, Sichuan, earthquake (M _S 7.0), and its 4,567 aftershocks recorded during the period between 20 April and May 3, 2013. Our results showed that most aftershocks are relocated between 10 and 20 km depths, but some large aftershocks were relocated around 30 km depth and small events extended upward near the surface. Vertical cross sections illustrate a shovel-shaped fault plane with a variable dip angle from the southwest to northeast along the fault. Furthermore, the dip angle of the fault plane is smaller around the mainshock than that in the surrounding areas along the fault. These results suggest that it may be easy to generate the strong earthquake in the place having a small dip angle of the fault, which is somewhat similar to the genesis of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. The Lushan mainshock is underlain by the seismically anomalous layers with low-V_P, low-V_S, and high-Poisson’s ratio anomalies, possibly suggesting that the fluid-filled fractured rock matrices might significantly reduce the effective normal stress on the fault plane to bring the brittle failure. The seismic gap between Lushan and Wenchuan aftershocks is suspected to be vulnerable to future seismic risks at greater depths, if any.     

2013年芦山地震序列震源机制与震源区构造变形特征分析

基于四川区域地震台网记录的波形资料,利用CAP波形反演方法,同时获取了2013年4月20日芦山M7.0级地震序列中88个M≥3.0级地震的震源机制解、震源矩心深度与矩震级,进而利用应变花（strain rosette）和面应变（areal strain）As值,分析了芦山地震序列震源机制和震源区构造运动与变形特征.获得的主要结果有：（1）芦山M7.0级主震破裂面参数为走向219°/倾角43°/滑动角101°,矩震级为M_W6.55,震源矩心深度15 km.芦山地震余震区沿龙门山断裂带走向长约37 km、垂直断裂带走向宽约16 km.主震两侧余震呈不对称分布,主震南西侧余震区长约27 km、北东侧长约10 km.余震分布在7~22 km深度区间,优势分布深度为9~14 km,序列平均深度约13 km,多数余震分布在主震上部.粗略估计的芦山地震震源体体积为37 km×16 km×16 km.（2）面应变As值统计显示,芦山地震序列以逆冲型地震占绝对优势,所占比例超过93%.序列主要受倾向NW、倾角约45°的近NE-SW向逆冲断层控制;部分余震发生在与上述主发震断层近乎垂直的倾向SE的反冲断层上;龙门山断裂带前山断裂可能参与了部分余震活动.P轴近水平且优势方位单一,呈NW-SE向,与龙门山断裂带南段所处区域构造应力场方向一致,反映芦山地震震源区主要受区域构造应力场控制,芦山地震是近NE-SW向断层在近水平的NW-SE向主压应力挤压作用下发生逆冲运动的结果.序列中6次非逆冲型地震均发生在主震震中附近,且主震震中附近P轴仰角变化明显,表明主震对其震中附近局部区域存在明显的应力扰动.（3）序列整体及不同震级段的应变花均呈NW向挤压白瓣形态,显示芦山地震震源区深部构造呈逆冲运动、NW向纯挤压变形.各震级段的应变花方位与形状一致,具有震级自相似性特征,揭示震源区深部构造运动和变形模式与震级无关.（4）不同深度的应变花形态以NW-NWW向挤压白瓣为优势,显示震源区构造无论是总体还是分段均以NW-NWW向挤压变形为特征.但应变花方位与形状随深度仍具有较明显的变化,可能反映了震源区构造变形在深度方向上存在分段差异.（5）芦山地震震源体尺度较小,且主震未发生在龙门山断裂带南段主干断裂上,南段长期积累的应变能未能得到充分释放,南段仍存在发生强震的危险.     

2014年鲁甸MS6.5地震及其强余震序列重定位

本文采用云南测震台网的观测报告数据,利用双差定位方法对2014年鲁甸M_S6.5地震及其强余震序列进行了重定位,获得了3 658个地震事件的震源参数。重定位后地震序列的震中分布显示,余震分布存在两个优势方向,分别为近EW向和SES向,呈共轭型分布,近EW向条带展布长度为30 km,SES 向条带展布长度为20 km;震源深度的分布显示,地震序列总体表现为主震附近震源较深,沿近EW向和SES向逐渐变浅,地震序列的震源深度主要分布在4—20 km范围内。截至2017年2月28日,鲁甸M_S6.5地震震源区共发生（同一天发生的一组地震算一次）M_S≥4.5强余震4次。重定位后的鲁甸4次强余震序列震中分布存在差异:2014年9月10日和10月27日两次强余震序列的展布特征与主震相同,而2016年和2017年另外两次强余震的后续余震仅分布在强余震的周边,与主震序列明显不同。综合重定位后余震序列分布、震源区地质调查资料以及前人研究认为,鲁甸地震的4次强余震序列是区域应力场和主震引发的震源区应力场共同作用的结果,2014年9月10日和10月27日的两次强余震序列主要受主震引发的震源区应力场的影响;而2016年和2017年两次强余震序列则主要受区域应力场的影响。      

2012年6月30日新疆新源-和静MS6.6 地震发震构造初步研究

2012年6月30日新疆维吾尔自治区新源-和静县交界发生M_S6.6地震,该地震是2010年青海玉树7.1级地震和2013年4月20日四川芦山7.0级地震之间中国大陆发生的最大的地震.本文基于新疆数字地震台网记录的此次地震序列震相资料,分别用绝对和相对定位方法联合对其进行重新定位,重新定位后余震展布为NW向,主震位置为43.429°N,84.755°E,深度为21.8 km.基于新疆地震台网记录6.6级地震波形数据,本文用CAP方法反演了震源机制解和震源深度.结果显示：M_S6.6地震震源机制解：节面Ⅰ走向39°,倾角46°,滑动角12°,节面Ⅱ走向301°,倾角81°,滑动角135°;震源深度为21 km,与利用地震震相到时确定的主震震源深度基本一致.主震震源机制解的节面Ⅱ与伊犁盆地北缘断裂走向和倾角基本一致,综合精确定位余震展布和伊犁盆地北缘断裂性质分析认为,新源-和静M_S6.6地震发震构造是伊犁盆地北缘断裂,震源深度为21 km左右,是一个高角的内陆倾滑地震.