依据断层摩擦准则估算的地壳主应力量值关系式及其参数分析

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2016.02.012

地震地质 ›› 2016, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (2): 386-396.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2016.02.012

依据断层摩擦准则估算的地壳主应力量值关系式及其参数分析

曹慧静, 崔效锋, 樊文杰

中国地震局地壳应力研究所, 地壳动力学重点实验室, 北京 100085

收稿日期:2015-05-26 修回日期:2016-02-23 出版日期:2016-06-20 发布日期:2016-08-11
通讯作者: 崔效锋,男,研究员,E-mail:cuixfeng@sina.com
作者简介:曹慧静,女,1989年生,硕士研究生,主要从事地壳应力场研究,E-mail:doreen_jing@hotmail.com。
基金资助:
国家科技支撑计划课题（2012BAK19B03）、深部探测技术与实验研究专项（SinoProbe0604）和中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务专项（ZDJ201414）共同资助。

ESTIMATING THE MAGNITUDE OF TECTONIC STRESS BASED ON THE FRICTION CRITERIA OF FAULT AND ANALYSING THE PARAMETERS' INFLUENCE

CAO Hui-jing, CUI Xiao-feng, FAN Wen-jie

Key Lab of Crustal Dynamics, Institute of Crustal Dynamics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100085, China

Received:2015-05-26 Revised:2016-02-23 Online:2016-06-20 Published:2016-08-11

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于Zoback（1992b）提出的估算地壳构造应力量值的思路和2个假设，考虑了3个主应力分别为垂直主应力（对应3种构造应力类型）的情况，比较系统地建立了依据应力形因子和断层摩擦强度估算构造主应力量值的关系式。讨论了摩擦系数、孔隙压力系数和应力形因子对构造主应力量值的影响：在最大主应力为近水平的情况下（应力类型为走滑型或逆断型），最大主应力量值（或随深度线性增加的斜率）随摩擦系数取值的增大而增大，随孔隙压力系数取值的增大而减小。在最小主应力为近水平的情况下（应力类型为走滑型或正断型），最小主应力量值（或随深度线性增加的斜率）随摩擦系数取值的增大而减小，随孔隙压力系数的增大而增大。并且，3个参数对主应力量值估算的影响很大，如果摩擦系数取值较大，同时孔隙压力系数取值较小，最大主应力随深度增加的斜率与最小主应力随深度增加的斜率之间的差异就大，有可能导致不合理的结果出现。该方法只是对地壳岩石发生脆性破裂或摩擦滑动时的构造应力量值进行近似估算，估算结果并不是地壳稳定状态下的构造应力量值。

关键词: 应力量值, 摩擦系数, 孔隙压力, 应力形因子, 构造应力

Abstract:

Based on Zoback's method for estimating the tectonic stress magnitude and the two assumptions, we consider the conditions that three principal stresses are vertical principal stresses respectively(corresponding to three kinds of tectonic stress types). We deduced the formulae for estimating the tectonic stress magnitude by using the stress form factor and frictional strength of the fault and discussed the correlative influence of friction coefficient, pore pressure parameter and stress form factor on the stress value. When the maximum principal stress is approximately horizontal (when stress regime is strike-slip or reverse), the maximum principal stress (or the slope of stress increasing linearly with depth) is positively related with the friction coefficient and negatively related with the pore pressure coefficient. When the minimum principal stress is approximately horizontal (when stress regime is strike-slip or normal), the minimum principal stress (or the slope with depth) is negatively related to the friction coefficient, and positive to the pore pressure. Besides, these three parameters have great influence on the estimation of the tectonic stress magnitude. If the friction coefficient is too big and the pore pressure is too small, there could be a wide difference between the slope of the maximum principal stress increasing with depth and the slope of the minimum principal stress increasing with depth, which could lead to an unreasonable result. Our method is just an approximate estimation for the tectonic stress magnitude when crustal rocks have undergone brittle rupture or frictional sliding. The estimated results are not the tectonic stress magnitude when crust is in steady state.

Key words: stress magnitude, friction coefficient, pore pressure, stress form factor, tectonic stress

中图分类号:

P315.2

曹慧静, 崔效锋, 樊文杰. 依据断层摩擦准则估算的地壳主应力量值关系式及其参数分析[J]. 地震地质, 2016, 38(2): 386-396.

CAO Hui-jing, CUI Xiao-feng, FAN Wen-jie. ESTIMATING THE MAGNITUDE OF TECTONIC STRESS BASED ON THE FRICTION CRITERIA OF FAULT AND ANALYSING THE PARAMETERS' INFLUENCE[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2016, 38(2): 386-396.

参考文献

陈顒, 黄庭芳, 刘恩儒. 2001. 岩石物理学［M］. 北京:北京大学出版社. CHEN Yong, HUANG Ting-fang, LIU En-ru. 2001. Rock Physics［M］. Peking University Press, Beijing(in Chinese).
崔效锋, 谢富仁, 张红艳. 2006. 川滇地区现代构造应力场分区及动力学意义［J］. 地震学报, 28(5):451-461. CUI Xiao-feng, XIE Fu-ren, ZHANG Hong-yan. 2006. Recent tectonic stress field zoning in Sichuan-Yunnan region and its dynamic interest［J］. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 28(5):451-461(in Chinese).
何昌荣, Verberne B A, Spiers C J. 2011. 龙门山断裂带沉积岩和天然断层泥的摩擦滑动性质与启示［J］. 岩石力学与工程学报, 30(1):113-131. HE Chang-rong, Verberne B A, Spiers C J. 2011. Frictional properties of sedimentary rocks and natural fault gouge from Longmenshan fault zone and their implications［J］. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 30(1):113-131(in Chinese).
单斌, 熊熊, 郑勇, 等. 2009. 2008年5月12日M_W7.9汶川地震导致的周边断层应力变化［J］. 中国科学(D辑), 39(5):537-545. SHAN Bin, XIONG Xiong, ZHENG Yong, et al. 2009. Stress changes on major faults caused by M_W 7.9 Whenchuan earthquakes, May 12, 2008［J］. Sci China (Ser D), 39(5):537-545(in Chinese).
石耀霖. 2004. 地应力主应力的方位角求和与平均［J］. 地震学报, 26(1):106-109. SHI Yao-lin. 2004. Summation and decomposition of principal stresses in the crust［J］. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 26(1):106-109(in Chinese).
王艳华, 崔效锋, 胡幸平, 等. 2012. 基于原地应力测量数据的中国大陆地壳上部应力状态研究［J］. 地球物理学报, 55(9):3016-3027. WANG Yan-hua, CUI Xiao-feng, HU Xing-ping, et al. 2012. Study on the stress state in upper crust of China mainland based on in-situ stress measurements［J］. Chinese J Geophys, 55(9):3016-3027(in Chinese).
谢富仁, 崔效锋, 赵建涛. 2003. 全球应力场与构造分析［J］. 地学前缘, 10(增刊):22-30. XIE Fu-ren, CUI Xiao-feng, ZHAO Jian-tao. 2003. Analysis of global tectonic stress field［J］. Earth Science Frontiers, 10(Suppl):22-30(in Chinese).
谢富仁, 苏刚, 崔效锋, 等. 2001. 滇西南地区现代构造应力场分析［J］. 地震学报, 23(1):17-23. XIE Fu-ren, SU Gang, CUI Xiao-feng, et al. 2001. Modern tectonic stress field in southwestern Yunnan, China［J］. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 23(1):17-23(in Chinese).
谢富仁, 祝景忠, 粱海庆, 等. 1993. 中国西南地区现代构造应力场基本特征［J］. 地震学报, 15(4):407-417. XIE Fu-ren, ZHU Jing-zhong, LIANG Hai-qing, et al. 1993. Modern tectonic stress field in southwestern China［J］. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 15(4):407-417(in Chinese).
许忠淮. 1985. 用滑动方向拟合法反演唐山余震区的平均应力场［J］. 地震学报, 7(4):349-361. XU Zhong-huai. 1985. Mean stress filed in Tangshan aftershock area obtained from focal mechanism data by fitting slip directions［J］. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 7(4):349-361(in Chinese).
张浪平, 邵志刚, 李志海. 2014. 印度板块与欧亚板块在兴都库什-帕米尔地区相互俯冲的动力作用分析［J］. 地球物理学报, 57(2):459-471. ZHANG Lang-ping, SHAO Zhi-gang, LI Zhi-hai. 2014. Dynamic action of mutual subduction between the Indian and the Eurasia plates in Hindu Kush-Pamir region［J］. Chinese J Geophys, 57(2):459-471(in Chinese).
赵建涛, 崔效锋, 谢富仁. 2002. 唐山地震震源区构造应力场强度的初步分析［J］. 地震学报, 24(3):268-276. ZHAO Jian-tao, CUI Xiao-feng, XIE Fu-ren. 2002. Preliminary analysis of the tectonic stress intensity in the source region of Tangshan earthquake［J］. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 24(3):268-276(in Chinese).
Angelier J. 1979. Determination of the mean principal direction of stresses for a given fault population［J］. Tectonophysics, 56:17-26.
Byerlee J D. 1967. Frictional characteristics of granite under high confining pressure［J］. J Geophys Res, 72:3639-3648.
Byerlee J D. 1978. Friction of rocks［J］. Pure Appl Geophys, 116:615-626.
Gephart J W, Forsyth D W. 1984. An improved method for determining the regional stress tensor using earthquake focal mechanism data:Application to the San Fernando earthquake sequence［J］. J Geophys Res, 89:9305-9320.
Hardebeck J L, Michael A J. 2006. Damped regional-scale stress inversions:Methodology and examples for southern California and the Coalinga aftershock sequence［J］. J Geophys Res, 111:B11310. doi:10.1029/2005JB004144.
Jaeger J C, Cook N G W. 1979. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics［M］. Chapman and Hall, London.
Xu Junshan, Wang Jianxin, Xu Congcong. 2014. The estimation of the maximum horizontal differential stress and its depth in the local lithosphere［C］//Proceedings of the 48th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, 2014, 2. 948-952.
Kohlstedt D L, Brian Evans, Mackwell S J. 1995. Strength of the lithosphere:Constraints imposed by laboratory experiments［J］. J Geophysics Res, 100(B9):17587-17602.
Plenefisch T, Bonjer K P. 1997. The stress field in the Rhine Graben area inferred from earthquake focal mechanisms and estimation of frictional parameters［J］. Tectonophysics, 275:71-97.
Zoback M L. 1992a. First and second order patterns of stress in the lithosphere:The world stress map project［J］. J Geophysics Res, 97(B8):11703-11728.
Zoback M L. 1992b. Stress field constrains on intraplate seismicity in eastern North America［J］. J Geophysics Res, 97:11761-11782.

[1]	樊文杰. 2021年5月21日漾濞M_S6.4地震及周边的构造应力场特征和动力学意义[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(1): 208-230.
[2]	张国庆, 祝意青, 梁伟锋. 青藏高原东缘扶边河断裂周边地壳密度及垂向构造应力特征[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(3): 578-589.
[3]	李梦圆, 蒋海昆, 宋金, 王锦红. 西藏波密的地震活动及季节性降雨的触发作用[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(3): 625-648.
[4]	王雨晴, 冯万鹏, 张培震. 交角约90°共轭断裂的现今形变及对构造应力场的指示意义——以2019年M_W≥6.4菲律宾地震序列为例[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(2): 313-332.
[5]	余占洋, 沈旭章, 梁浩, 郑文俊, 刘旭宙. 基于地震活动性和震源机制解研究渭河-运城盆地主要断裂带的特征及应力场分布[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(2): 395-413.
[6]	张志斌, 赵晓成, 任林. 新疆天山中段的震源机制解与构造应力场特征分析[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(3): 595-611.
[7]	詹慧丽, 张冬丽, 何骁慧, 沈旭章, 郑文俊, 李志刚. 基于地震活动特征的鄂尔多斯西缘现今构造变形模式的限定[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(2): 346-365.
[8]	李君, 王勤彩, 崔子健, 张佩, 周琳, 周辉. 川滇菱形块体东边界及邻区震源机制解与构造应力场空间分布特征[J]. 地震地质, 2019, 41(6): 1395-1412.
[9]	贾媛, 甘卫军, 李杰, 朱成林, 殷海涛, 卢双苓, 鞠佳斌. 抽水对泰安地震台钻孔分量应变的影响及其机制[J]. 地震地质, 2019, 41(6): 1429-1443.
[10]	李君, 王勤彩, 崔子健, 刘庚, 周琳, 路珍, 周辉. 2017年8月九寨沟M7.0地震序列断层结构及构造应力场特征[J]. 地震地质, 2019, 41(1): 58-71.
[11]	王甘娇, 胡幸平, 高威, 崔效锋. 格点尝试法计算综合断层面解的置信区间分析——以赣南地区为例[J]. 地震地质, 2018, 40(6): 1305-1317.
[12]	徐晶, 季灵运, 姬存伟, 孙赫, 赵强. 川滇菱形块体东边界断裂带内库仑应力演化及危险性[J]. 地震地质, 2017, 39(3): 451-469.
[13]	张丽芬, 廖武林, 李井冈, 魏贵春, 申学林. 2013年12月16日巴东M5.1地震序列及发震构造分析[J]. 地震地质, 2016, 38(3): 747-759.
[14]	李自红, 李斌, 刘鸿福, 闫小兵, 扈桂让. 韩城断裂带NE段构造应力特征[J]. 地震地质, 2015, 37(2): 468-481.
[15]	冯梅, 张纪中, 安美建. 2008年汶川地震前后震源区构造应力场变化[J]. 地震地质, 2013, 35(4): 701-720.

依据断层摩擦准则估算的地壳主应力量值关系式及其参数分析

ESTIMATING THE MAGNITUDE OF TECTONIC STRESS BASED ON THE FRICTION CRITERIA OF FAULT AND ANALYSING THE PARAMETERS' INFLUENCE

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价