2021年5月22日青海玛多M7.4地震余震重新定位与断层面参数拟合

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2023.02.012

地震地质 ›› 2023, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (2): 500-516.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2023.02.012

2021年5月22日青海玛多M7.4地震余震重新定位与断层面参数拟合

刘白云¹^,²^,³⁾(), 赵莉⁴⁾^,^*(), 刘云云⁵⁾, 王文才¹⁾, 张卫东¹⁾

1)甘肃省地震局, 兰州 730000
2)中国地震局地质研究所, 地震动力学国家重点实验室, 北京 100029
3)甘肃省敦煌文物保护研究中心, 敦煌 736200
4)中国铁塔股份有限公司, 甘肃省分公司, 兰州 730000
5)新疆卓越工程项目管理有限公司, 乌鲁木齐 841100

修回日期:2022-08-03 出版日期:2023-04-20 发布日期:2023-05-18
通讯作者: *赵莉, 女, 1985年生, 工程师, 主要从事无线通信、波速成像等方面的研究, E-mail: 76255564@qq.com。
作者简介:刘白云, 男, 1980年生, 高级工程师, 主要研究方向为地震断层面参数、地壳速度结构反演, E-mail: 421121833@qq.com。
基金资助:
中国地震局地震预测研究所基本科研业务专项(2017IESLZ02);甘肃省科技重点研发计划项目(22YF7FA079);地震动力学国家重点实验室开放基金(LED2020B01);甘肃省敦煌文物保护研究中心开放课题(GDW2021YB13)

THE RESEARCH ON RELOCATION AND FAULT PLANE SOLUTION AND GEOMETRIC MEANING OF THE MADUO M7.4 EARTHQUAKE ON 22 MAY 2021

LIU Bai-yun¹^,²^,³⁾(), ZHAO Li⁴⁾^,^*(), LIU Yun-yun⁵⁾, WANG Wen-cai¹⁾, ZHANG Wei-dong¹⁾

1)Gansu Earthquake Agency, Lanzhou 730000, China
2)State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics, Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100029, China
3)Gansu Provincial Research Center for Conservation of Dunhang Cultural Heritage, Dunhuang 736200, China
4)China Tower Co., LTD Gansu Branch, Lanzhou 730000, China
5)Xinjiang Excellent Engineering Project Management Co., Ltd., Urumqi 841100, China

Revised:2022-08-03 Online:2023-04-20 Published:2023-05-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

文中基于青海和周边地震台网72个台站以及震后布设的12个流动观测台站于2021年5月22-27日记录的青海玛多M7.4地震主震及1 357次余震资料, 使用双差地震定位法重新对余震位置进行了修定, 获得了1 289次余震修定后的震源位置。重新定位后, 余震基本沿昆仑山口-江错断裂呈NWW向线性分布, 震源深度由重新定位前主要集中于5~10km变为在5~15km深度范围内相对均匀地分布。根据重新定位后的余震分布特点并参考地质断层及现场考察的地震破裂带展布情况, 依据成丛地震发生在断层附近的原则, 选取了6个矩形区域内重新定位后的震源信息, 联合采用模拟退火与高斯-牛顿算法反演获得了每个区域断层面的详细参数。结果表明, 主干断裂为长约146km、总体走向为285°~290°的高倾角大型左旋走滑兼逆冲断裂。重新定位还显示, 主干断裂东、西两侧有分叉现象, 可能是大地震发生时期由于复杂的应力分配导致触发并新产生2条分支断裂, 断裂整体显示为树形。西侧分支走向为306°, 与主干断裂相交, 夹角为21°。东侧分支走向近EW, 与主干断裂的东段相连。

关键词: 双差定位, 玛多M7.4地震, 断层面解, 发震构造

Abstract:

At 2:04 on May 22, 2021, an earthquake of M7.4 occurred in Maduo County, Golog Prefecture, Qinghai Province, with the focal depth of 17 kilometers, the epicenter at 34.59°N and 98.34°E. This earthquake was the largest after the Wenchuan earthquake in China. The epicenter of the earthquake is 38km away from Maduo county seat and 385km from Xining, the provincial capital. The earthquake caused some houses to collapse and some damage to roads in the epicenter. But due to the sparse population in the epicenter area, the earthquake did not cause casualties.

Seismologist believe that the earthquake is the result of the continuous activity of the boundary fault of the Bayankala block, which is geographically located in the north of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and is the hub for the transformation of the direction of the crustal movement of the plateau. In recent years, many destructive earthquakes occurred inside the block. This earthquake is another strong earthquake after the M7.1 Yushu earthquake in Qinghai in 2010. According to the analysis of this earthquake briefing, the fault zone that induced this earthquake is speculated to be the Maduo-Gande fault zone or the Kunlun Mountains Pass-Jiangcuo fault zone.

In order to find out which fault is the seismogenic structure and the distribution of the seismogenic structure of this earthquake, we relocated the dense earthquakes by double-difference method based on the data of 1357 aftershocks in the Maduo M7.4 earthquake area recorded by 72 fixed stations of the digital seismic network of Gansu and its adjacent seismic network and 12 portable seismographic stations during the May 22 to May 27, and obtained the source parameters for 1289 earthquakes. The accurately located small earthquakes distribute along both sides of the Kunlun Mountains Pass-Jiangcuo Fault, which is NNW-trending obviously. It shows that the seismogenic structure of this earthquake is the Kunlun Mountains Pass-Jiangcuo Fault, rather than the Maduo Gande Fault as considered previously by some scholars. This is consistent with the research results of surface fracture zone, magnetotelluric detection, InSAR coseismic deformation and relocation of other aftershocks. Most earthquakes distribute at the depth range of 0~15km of the crust after the relocation, and the result shows that the focal depths are more concentrated. The relocation also shows that the east and west ends of the main fault have bifurcations. It may be that the complex stress distribution triggered two new branch faults during the occurrence of the great earthquake, and the overall fault shows a “tree-type” structure. The west branch trends 306°and intersects the main fault at 21°. The east branch is nearly EW trending and connected with the east section of the main fault.

Generally, the earthquakes are closely related to active tectonics, large earthquakes and its aftershocks usually occur on fault zones with obvious activity. The distribution of small earthquakes is related to the complex underground stress state and the complex structure of the fault zone. We can inverse the shapes and positions of the fault planes using spatial distribution of hypocenters of mainshock and the corresponding aftershocks, according to the principle that clustered earthquakes occur near the faults. Six rectangular regions are selected according to the distribution characteristics of relocated aftershocks and by reference to the distribution of geological faults and earthquake rupture zones. We obtained the detailed parameters of fault plane in each region by using the simulated annealing algorithm and the Gauss-Newton algorithm according to the source information after the relocation in 6 rectangular areas. On this condition, rake angle of the fault plane is further inferred from regional tectonic stress parameters. The results show that the main fault is a large, high dip angle, sinistral strike-slip fault with thrust component, striking 285°~290° and about 146km long. It extends from Tanggema Township of Maduo in the southeast(34.49°N, 98.91°E)to Gazejialong Township in the northwest(34.81°N, 97.54°E). The movement characteristics of the newly generated western segment 2 show dextral strike slip and thrust, which is diametrically opposite to that of the main fault. This shows the complexity of the earthquake rupture process, and further research is needed on the tectonic mechanics and deep structures that produce this special rupture.

Compared with the focal mechanism solutions obtained by domestic and foreign authorities, the fault plane parameters obtained in this paper are similar to them, indicating that our conclusions are reliable. Besides, the spatial distribution of inverted fault plane is basically identical to that of the rupture zone derived from post-earthquake investigation in the earthquake area.

Key words: double-difference location approach, the Maduo M7.4 earthquake, fault plane solution, seismogenic structures

中图分类号:

P315.2

刘白云, 赵莉, 刘云云, 王文才, 张卫东. 2021年5月22日青海玛多M7.4地震余震重新定位与断层面参数拟合[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(2): 500-516.

LIU Bai-yun, ZHAO Li, LIU Yun-yun, WANG Wen-cai, ZHANG Wei-dong. THE RESEARCH ON RELOCATION AND FAULT PLANE SOLUTION AND GEOMETRIC MEANING OF THE MADUO M7.4 EARTHQUAKE ON 22 MAY 2021[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2023, 45(2): 500-516.

图/表 15

图1 巴颜喀拉块体及周缘7级以上大地震分布图底图来自中国地质科学院地质研究所

Fig. 1 The distribution map of large earthquakes with M≥7 in Bayankala block and its periphery.

图2 震区的主要断裂及地震台站分布

Fig. 2 Spatial distribution of main faults and stations in the earthquake area.

图3 双差定位采用的初始一维P波速度模型

Fig. 3 1-D initial velocity model used for double difference relocation.

图4 研究区重新定位前的小地震震中分布图

Fig. 4 Map view of microseismicity before relocation in the research area.

图5 研究区重新定位后的小地震震中分布图粗线青色矩形框为不同的反演区域段。F1东昆仑断裂; F2昆仑山口-江错断裂; F3玛多-甘德断裂; F4达日断裂

Fig. 5 Map view of microseismicity after relocation in the research area.

图6 研究区小地震重新定位前(a)、后(b)的震源深度统计图

Fig. 6 Statistics of focal depths of small earthquakes before(a)and after(b)relocation in the research area.

表1 使用重新定位的余震资料拟合的断层面参数

Table1 Fault plane parameters determined using relocation results of aftershocks

位置	地震个数	走向		倾角		距离		滑动角 /(°)	断层面顶点位置
		数值 /(°)	标准差 /(°)	数值 /(°)	标准差 /(°)	数值 /(°)	标准差 /(°)	滑动角 /(°)		北纬 /(°)	东经 /(°)	深度 /km
西段1	244	285	0.6	85	1.2	0	0.1	14.6	34.81	97.54	3.1
									34.79	97.53	24.1
									34.71	97.92	24.1
									34.72	97.93	3.1
西段2	41	306	1.1	87.9	1.7	0	0.1	149.9	34.79	97.94	2.8
									34.8	97.94	18.2
									34.92	97.73	18.2
									34.92	97.72	2.8
中西段	219	286.7	0.9	84.4	1.5	0	0.09	19.6	34.67	98.19	3.5
									34.69	98.2	16.9
									34.75	97.96	16.9
									34.73	97.95	3.5
中东段	472	290	0.2	83.5	0.7	0	0.05	23.9	34.49	98.91	3.8
									34.5	98.91	13.9
									34.69	98.29	13.9
									34.68	98.28	3.8
东段1	36	92.2	1.4	89.1	1.9	0	0.1	1.6	34.41	99.22	2.1
									34.41	99.22	16.1
									34.42	99.04	16.1
									34.42	99.04	2.1
东段2	119	87.7	0.6	89.1	1.1	0	0.07	1.4	34.46	99	3
									34.46	99	15.8
									34.47	99.25	15.8
									34.47	99.25	3

图7 昆仑山口-江错断裂西段1重定位的小地震分布 a 在平面方向上的投影; b 在竖向上的投影; c 在断面上的投影; d 小地震距离断层面的情况。圆圈表示重定位后的余震, 粗线为拟合断层面的边界; AA'为边界端点; SD是走向, DD是倾向, DF是余震与断层面之间的距离, F为频度

Fig. 7 Distribution of the relocated aftershocks near the western segment 1 of the Kunlun Mountains Pass-Jiangcuo Fault.

图8 昆仑山口-江错断裂西段2重定位后的小地震分布其余说明与图 7相同

Fig. 8 Distribution of the relocated aftershocks near the western segment 2 of the Kunlun Mountains Pass-Jiangcuo Fault.

图9 昆仑山口-江错断裂中西段重定位后的小地震分布其余说明与图7相同

Fig. 9 Distribution of the relocated aftershocks near the central and western segment of the Kunlun Mountains Pass-Jiangcuo Fault.

图10 昆仑山口-江错断裂中东段重定位后的小地震分布其余说明与图7相同

Fig. 10 Distribution of the relocated aftershocks near the central and eastern segment of the Kunlun Mountains Pass-Jiangcuo Fault.

图11 昆仑山口-江错断裂东段1重定位后的小地震分布其余说明与图7相同

Fig. 11 Distribution of the relocated aftershocks near the eastern segment 1 of the Kunlun Mountains Pass-Jiangcuo Fault.

图12 昆仑山口-江错断裂中东段2重定位后的小地震分布其余说明与图7相同

Fig. 12 Distribution of the relocated aftershocks near the eastern segment 2 of the Kunlun Mountains Pass-Jiangcuo Fault.

表2 研究区局部应力场参数

Table2 Regional stress field of Maduo area

P轴		T轴		R
方位	倾伏角	方位	倾伏角	0.96
212°	6°	304°	22°	0.96

表3 不同科研单位给出青海玛多县M7.4地震震源机制解参数①(① https://:ses-kled.cidp.edu.cn/info/1084/1265.htm)

Table3 The parameters of focal mechanism solutions of Maduo M7.4 earthquake from different scientific research institutions①(① https://:ses-kled.cidp.edu.cn/info/1084/1265.htm)

序号	机构或作者	震源机制解
		走向/(°)	倾角/(°)	滑动角/(°)
1	王卫民	103.1	83.5	6.5
2	中国地震台网中心	102	81	-11
3	USGS	92	67	-40
4	GCMT	282	83	-9
5	CPPT	104	75	14
6	GFZ	102	84	-3
7	中国地震局地球物理研究所	101	87	-7

参考文献 21

[1]	崔华伟, 郑建常, 张正帅, 等. 2020. 长岛地区小地震断层面参数拟合及应力场特征[J]. 地震地质, 42(6): 1432-1445. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2020.06.011. DOI
	CUI Hua-wei, ZHENG Jian-chang, ZHANG Zheng-shuai, et al. 2020. Fitting the fault plane parameters with small earthquakes and the characteristics of stress field of Changdao area[J]. Seismology and Geology, 42(6): 1432-1445. (in Chinese)
[2]	董治平. 1990. 青海东部地区新生代构造应力场探讨[J]. 内陆地震, 4(3): 247-256.
	DONG Zhi-ping. 1990. The analysis of Cenozoic stress field in the region of eastern Qinghai[J]. Inland Earthquake, 4(3): 247-256. (in Chinese)
[3]	华俊, 赵德政, 单新建, 等. 2021. 2021年青海玛多 M_W7.3 地震InSAR的同震形变场、断层滑动分布及其对周边区域的应力扰动[J]. 地震地质, 43(3): 677-691. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2021.03.013. DOI
	HUA Jun, ZHAO De-zheng, SHAN Xin-jian, et al. 2021. Coseismic deformation field, slip distribution and Coulomb stress disturbance of the 2021 M_W7.3 Maduo earthquake using Sentinel-1 InSAR observations[J]. Seismology and Geology, 43(3): 677-691. (in Chinese)
[4]	李松林, 张先康, 张成科, 等. 2002. 玛沁-兰州-靖边地震测深剖面地壳速度结构的初步研究[J]. 地球物理学报, 45(2): 210-217.
	LI Song-lin, ZHANG Xian-kang, ZHANG Cheng-ke, et al. 2002. A preliminary study on the crustal velocity structure of Maqin-Lanzhou-Jingbian by means of deep seismic sounding profile[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 45(2): 210-217. (in Chinese)
[5]	刘白云, 尹志文, 袁道阳, 等. 2020. 青藏高原东北缘老虎山断裂的断层面参数拟合及其几何意义[J]. 地震地质, 42(6): 1354-1369. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2020.06.006. DOI
	LIU Bai-yun, YIN Zhi-wen, YUAN Dao-yang, et al. 2020. The research on fault plane solution and geometric meaning of the Laohushan Fault in the northeastern Tibetan plateau[J]. Seismology and Geology, 42(6): 1354-1369. (in Chinese)
[6]	刘白云, 袁道阳, 张波, 等. 2012. 1879年武都南8级大地震断层面参数和滑动性质的厘定[J]. 地震地质, 34(3): 415-424. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2012.03.003. DOI
	LIU Bai-yun, YUAN Dao-yang, ZHANG Bo, et al. 2012. Determination of fault parameters and sliding behavior of the 1879 southern Wudu M8.0 earthquake[J]. Seismology and Geology, 34(3): 415-424. (in Chinese)
[7]	刘白云, 曾文浩, 袁道阳, 等. 2014. 1954年腾格里沙漠北7级地震断层面参数和滑动性质研究[J]. 地震工程学报, 36(3): 622-627.
	LIU Bai-yun, ZENG Wen-hao, YUAN Dao-yang, et al. 2014. Fault parameters and slip properties of the 1954 northern Tengger desert M7.0 earthquake[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 36(3): 622-627. (in Chinese)
[8]	刘白云, 曾文浩, 袁道阳, 等. 2015. 1927年古浪8级大地震断层面参数和滑动性质[J]. 地震地质, 37(3): 818-828. doi: 103969/j.issn.0253-4967.2015.03.012. DOI
	LIU Bai-yun, ZENG Wen-hao, YUAN Dao-yang, et al. 2015. The research on fault parameter and sliding behavior of the 1927 Gulang M8.0 earthquake[J]. Seismology and Geology, 37(3): 818-828. (in Chinese)
[9]	潘家伟, 白明坤, 李超, 等. 2021. 2021年5月22日青海玛多 M_S7.4 地震地表破裂带及发震构造[J]. 地质学报, 95(6): 1655-1670.
	PAN Jia-wei, BAI Ming-kun, LI Chao, et al. 2021. Coseismic surface rupture and seismogenic structure of the 2021-05-22 Maduo(Qinghai) M_S7.4 earthquake[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica, 95(6): 1655-1670. (in Chinese)
[10]	孙庆山, 盛书中, 万永革, 等. 2016. 2014 年云南鲁甸 M_S6.5 地震断层面参数的确定[J]. 内陆地震, 30(1): 66-73.
	SUN Qing-shan, SHENG Shu-zhong, WAN Yong-ge, et al. 2016. Fault plane parameter determination of Yunnan Ludian M_S6.5 earthquake in 2014[J]. Inland Earthquake, 30(1): 66-73. (in Chinese)
[11]	万永革, 沈正康, 刁桂苓, 等. 2008. 利用小震分布和区域应力场确定大震断层面参数方法及其在唐山地震序列中的应用[J]. 地球物理学报, 51(3): 793-804.
	WAN Yong-ge, SHEN Zheng-kang, DIAO Gui-ling, et al. 2008. An algorithm of fault parameter determination using distribution of small earthquakes and parameters of regional stress field and its application to Tangshan earthquake sequence[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 51(3): 793-804. (in Chinese)
[12]	王未来, 房立华, 吴建平, 等. 2021. 2021年青海玛多 M_S7.4 地震序列精定位研究[J]. 中国科学(D辑), 51(7): 1193-1202.
	WANG Wei-lai, FANG Li-hua, WU Jian-ping, et al. 2021. Aftershock sequence relocation of the 2021 M_S7.4 Maduo earthquake, Qinghai, China[J]. Science in China(Ser D), 51(7): 1193-1202. (in Chinese)
[13]	徐旭, 徐锦承, 张伟. 2020. 2017年四川九寨沟 M_S7.0 地震及余震定位研究[J]. 中国地震, 36(2): 324-332.
	XU Xu, XU Jin-cheng, ZHANG Wei. 2020. Relocation of main shock and aftershocks of the M_S7.0 Sichuan Jiuzhaigou earthquake[J]. Earthquake Research in China, 36(2): 324-332. (in Chinese)
[14]	徐志国, 梁姍姍, 张广伟, 等. 2021. 2021年5月22日青海玛多 M_S7.4 地震发震构造分析[J]. 地球物理学报, 64(8): 2657-2670.
	XU Zhi-guo, LIANG Shan-shan, ZHANG Guang-wei, et al. 2021. Analysis of seismogenic structure of Maduo, Qinghai M_S7.4 earthquake on May 22, 2021[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(8): 2657-2670. (in Chinese)
[15]	徐志双, 刘杰, 郑通彦, 等. 2020. 基于精定位余震序列的2019年四川长宁 M_S6.0 地震等震线研究[J]. 地震学报, 42(4): 447-456.
	XU Zhi-shuang, LIU Jie, ZHENG Tong-yan, et al. 2020. Isoseismal line of Sichuan Changning M_S6.0 earthquake in 2019 based on precisely located aftershocks sequence[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 42(4): 447-456. (in Chinese)
[16]	阎春恒, 周斌, 李莎, 等. 2020. 利用小震分布和区域应力场确定龙滩库区地震断层面参数[J]. 地震地质, 42(3): 562-579. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2020.03.002. DOI
	YAN Chun-heng, ZHOU Bin, LI Sha, et al. 2020. Determination of fault plane parameters in the Longtan reservoir by using precisely located small earthquake data and regional stress field[J]. Seismology and Geology, 42(3): 562-579. (in Chinese)
[17]	詹艳, 梁明剑, 孙翔宇, 等. 2021. 2021年5月22日青海玛多 M_S7.4 地震深部环境及发震构造模式[J]. 地球物理学报, 64(7): 2232-2252.
	ZHAN Yan, LIANG Ming-jian, SUN Xiang-yu, et al. 2021. Deep structure and seismogenic pattern of the 2021.5. 22 Madoi(Qinghai) M_S7.4 earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(7): 2232-2252. (in Chinese)
[18]	赵博, 高原, 马延路. 2022. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞 M_S6.4 地震序列重新定位、震源机制及应力场反演[J]. 地球物理学报, 65(3): 1006-1020.
	ZHAO Bo, GAO Yuan, MA Yan-lu, 2022. Relocations, focal mechanisms and stress inversion of the May 21th 2021 Yangbi M_S6.4 earthquake sequence in Yunnan, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 65(3): 1006-1020. (in Chinese)
[19]	周民都. 2006. 青藏高原东北缘深地震测深研究成果回顾[J]. 西北地震学报, 28(2): 189-191.
	ZHOU Min-du. 2006. Review of study on the depth seismic sounding in the northeastern margin of Qinghai-Tibetan plateau[J]. Northwestern Seismological Journal, 28(2): 189-191. (in Chinese)
[20]	Schaff D P, Bokelmann G H R, Beroza G C, et al. 2002. High-resolution image of Calaveras fault seismicity[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(B9): ESE5-1-ESE5-16.
[21]	Waldhauser F, Ellsworth W L. 2002. Fault structure and mechanics of the Hayward Fault, California, from double-difference earthquake locations[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B3): ESE3-1-ESE3-15.

2021年5月22日青海玛多M7.4地震余震重新定位与断层面参数拟合

THE RESEARCH ON RELOCATION AND FAULT PLANE SOLUTION AND GEOMETRIC MEANING OF THE MADUO M7.4 EARTHQUAKE ON 22 MAY 2021

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 15

参考文献 21

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	赵德政, 屈春燕, 张桂芳, 龚文瑜, 单新建, 朱传华, 张国宏, 宋小刚. 基于InSAR技术的同震形变获取、地震应急监测和发震构造研究应用进展[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(2): 570-592.
[2]	张珂, 王鑫, 杨红樱, 王玥, 徐岩, 李静. 2021年云南漾濞M_S6.4地震序列特征及其发震构造分析[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(1): 231-251.
[3]	李传友, 孙凯, 马骏, 李俊杰, 梁明剑, 房立华. 四川泸定6.8级地震--鲜水河断裂带磨西段局部发起、全段参与的一次复杂事件[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(6): 1648-1666.
[4]	张博譞, 郑文俊, 陈杰, 何骁慧, 李启雷, 张冬丽, 段磊, 陈干. 柴达木盆地北部2021年6月16日青海茫崖M_S5.8地震发震构造分析[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(5): 1313-1332.
[5]	姚生海, 盖海龙, 殷翔, 刘炜, 张加庆, 袁建新. 阿木尼克山山前地表破裂带与1962年6.8级地震关系的讨论[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(4): 976-991.
[6]	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.
[7]	梁宽, 何仲太, 姜文亮, 李永生, 刘泽民. 2022年1月8日青海门源M_S6.9地震的同震地表破裂特征[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(1): 256-278.
[8]	高帆, 韩竹军, 袁仁茂, 董绍鹏, 郭鹏. 滇东南地区小江断裂南段历史滑坡特征及其地震地质意义[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(6): 1412-1434.
[9]	姚生海, 盖海龙, 殷翔, 李鑫. 青海玛多M_S7.4地震地表破裂带的基本特征和典型现象[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(5): 1060-1072.
[10]	赵韬, 王莹, 马冀, 邵若潼, 徐一斐, 胡景. 2021年青海玛多7.4级地震序列重定位和震源机制特征[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 790-805.
[11]	王莹, 赵韬, 胡景, 刘春. 2021年云南漾濞6.4级地震序列重定位及震源机制解特征分析[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 847-863.
[12]	贾蕊, 张国宏, 解朝娣, 单新建, 张迎峰, 李成龙, 黄自成. 2019年巴基斯坦新米尔普尔M_W6.0地震的同震形变场与断层滑动分布反演[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(3): 600-613.
[13]	赵启光, 孙业君, 黄耘, 杨伟林, 顾勤平, 孟科, 杨浩. 高邮-宝应M_S4.9地震的发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(3): 630-646.
[14]	李传友, 张金玉, 王伟, 孙凯, 单新建. 2021年云南漾濞6.4级地震发震构造分析[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(3): 706-721.
[15]	崔仁胜, 赵翠萍, 周连庆, 陈阳. 2020年1月19日新疆伽师M_S6.4地震序列的活动特征和发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(2): 329-344.