基于区域构造应力场探讨2014年鲁甸地震余震活动发生在共轭断裂上的原因

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2024.01.011

地震地质 ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (1): 184-200.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2024.01.011

基于区域构造应力场探讨2014年鲁甸地震余震活动发生在共轭断裂上的原因

万永革¹^,²^,³⁾(), 宋泽尧¹^,²⁾, 关兆萱¹^,²⁾, 黄睿琪¹^,²⁾, 顾培苑¹^,²⁾, 王润妍¹^,²⁾

¹⁾ 防灾科技学院, 三河 065201
²⁾ 河北省地震动力学重点实验室, 三河 065201
³⁾ 河北红山巨厚沉积与地震灾害国家野外科学观测研究站, 隆尧 055350

收稿日期:2023-10-11 修回日期:2023-11-22 出版日期:2024-02-20 发布日期:2024-03-22
作者简介:
万永革, 男, 1967年生, 研究员, 主要从事构造应力场、地震应力触发、地震动力学等方面的研究工作, E-mail: wanyg217217@vip.sina.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(42174074); 国家自然科学基金(41674055); 国家自然科学基金(42364005); 中央高校科研业务专项(ZY20215117); 河北省地震动力学重点实验室开放基金(FZ212105)

DISCUSSION ON REASON WHY AFTERSHOCKS OF THE 2014 LUDIAN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRED ON THE CONJUGATED FAULTS BASED ON TECTONIC STRESS FIELD

WAN Yong-ge¹^,²^,³⁾(), SONG Ze-yao¹^,²⁾, GUAN Zhao-xuan¹^,²⁾, HUANG Rui-qi¹^,²⁾, GU Pei-yuan¹^,²⁾, WANG Run-yan¹^,²⁾

¹⁾ Institute of Disaster Prevention, Sanhe 065201, China
²⁾ Hebei Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics, Sanhe 065201, China
³⁾ National Observation and Research Station of Hebei Hongshan Giant Thick Sediments and Earthquake Disasters, Longyao 055350, China

Received:2023-10-11 Revised:2023-11-22 Online:2024-02-20 Published:2024-03-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

2014年8月3日云南省昭通市鲁甸县发生 M_S6.5 地震。该事件的特殊之处在于余震活动表现在共轭的昭通-鲁甸断裂和包谷垴-小河断裂上。为了从应力角度探究地震活动发生在2条断裂上的原因及确定主震发生在哪条断裂上, 文中首先搜集了鲁甸地震周围的震源机制数据, 求解了区域构造应力场, 然后采用新发展的模糊聚类断层面拟合法获得了地震2条断层的产状参数: NNW-SSE向分支的走向和倾角分别为336.67°和88.41°, 近EW向分支的走向和倾角分别为266.10°和86.42°。之后, 将应力场投影到2条断层面上, 发现包谷垴-小河断裂和昭通-鲁甸断裂的相对剪应力都很大, 说明2条断层均可能发生地震活动。相比之下, 包谷垴-小河断裂处的相对剪应力更大, 可能预示着包谷垴-小河断裂的地震活动比昭通-鲁甸断裂更强烈。上述分析得到了2条断层上地震活动的M-T图和总体地震矩的支持。

关键词: 共轭断层, 断层结构, 发震机制, 应力场

Abstract:

An earthquake of M_S6.5 occurred in Ludian county, Zhaotong city, Yunnan province, on August 3, 2014. Aftershock activity appears to be on two conjugated near-vertical Zhaotong-Ludian Fault and Baogunao-Xiaohe Fault, which is unusual phenomenon in aftershock distribution. Usually, most earthquakes occur on a single fault or fracture zone with several end-to-end linked faults. Therefore, the 2014 Zhaotong-Ludian earthquake sequence has attracted great attention from geoscientists, and a lot of work has been done in terms of the precise location of aftershocks, the focal mechanisms of the earthquake sequence, co-seismic slip model and the deep structure of the Earth’s crust. In order to determine the fault on which the mainshock occurred and to understand why the aftershocks occurred on the conjugate faults based on the tectonic stress point of view, we used the new developed fuzzy clustering and fault plane fitting method to calculate the geometry parameters of the 2 fault branches. The result shows that the strike and dip angle of the NNW-SSE branch(Baogunao-Xiaohe fault zone)are 336.67° and 88.41°, respectively, and the strike and dip angle of the near EW branch(Zhaotong-Ludian fault zone)are 266.10° and 86.42°, respectively. Both the Zhaotong-Ludian Fault and Baogunao-Xiaohe Fault are nearly vertical faults, which is consistent with the strike-slip stress regime in this area. In order to investigate the relative magnitude of the shear and normal stress on the two faults generated by the regional stress field, 128 focal mechanisms around the 2014 Ludian earthquake were collected, and types of focal mechanism are classified. It is found that most of the focal mechanisms in this area are strike-slip type, accounting for 61.72%, while the sum of other types of focal mechanisms is only 38.28%. By using the collected focal mechanism data, we estimated the stress tensor in this region. The determined stress tensor shows NW-SE compression and NE-SW extension, also a strike-slip stress regime. It reflects that the Qinghai-Tibet plateau was pushed and uplifted by the Indian plate, and the material flowed eastward, which was blocked by the hard blocks of the Sichuan basin and forced to turn southward, showing the extrusion of NW-SE and the tension of NE-SW. By projecting the stress field onto the two faults, it was observed that the relative shear stress on both the Baoguanya-Xiaohe Fault and the Zhaotong-Ludian Fault are large with 0.99 and 0.77, respectively, indicating that both faults are capable of seismic activity. Moreover, the Baogunao-Xiaohe Fault experiences higher relative shear stress compared to the Zhaotong-Ludian Fault, suggesting that seismic activity on the former is stronger. The observed aftershock seismicity on the Baogunao-Xiaohe Fault is stronger than that on the Zhoatong-Ludian Fault illustrated by frequency, magnitude and overall releasing seismic moment v.s. time, which validates the estimated larger shear stress on the Baogunao-Xiaohe Fault.

Key words: conjugated faults, fault structure, seismogenic mecganism, stress field

万永革, 宋泽尧, 关兆萱, 黄睿琪, 顾培苑, 王润妍. 基于区域构造应力场探讨2014年鲁甸地震余震活动发生在共轭断裂上的原因[J]. 地震地质, 2024, 46(1): 184-200.

WAN Yong-ge, SONG Ze-yao, GUAN Zhao-xuan, HUANG Rui-qi, GU Pei-yuan, WANG Run-yan. DISCUSSION ON REASON WHY AFTERSHOCKS OF THE 2014 LUDIAN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRED ON THE CONJUGATED FAULTS BASED ON TECTONIC STRESS FIELD[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2024, 46(1): 184-200.

图/表 8

图1 鲁甸地区地震的震源机制解分布图(a)和震源机制分类图(b) 红色实线为断层(闻学泽等, 2013), 沙滩球为震源机制解, 蓝色沙滩球为正断型, 红色沙滩球为正走滑型, 绿色沙滩球为走滑型, 黄色沙滩球为逆走滑型, 黑色沙滩球为逆断型

Fig. 1 Distribution of earthquakes with focal mechanism(a) and plot of focal mechanism classification(b) in Ludian area.

表1 震源机制解的反演结果

Table1 Inversion results of focal mechanism solutions

应力轴	最优方位角/(°)	倾伏角/(°)	不确定范围
主压应力轴	130.60	4.63	129.60°~131.10°和4.45°~5.13°
中间应力轴	16.00	79.00	15.00°~16.50°和78.50°~79.50°
主张应力轴	221.41	9.96	220.41°~221.91°和9.46°~10.46°

图2 鲁甸 MS6.5 地震震源区的应力状态左图中红色箭头为主压应力轴, 红色小箭头为理论滑动方向, 蓝色大箭头为主张应力轴, 蓝色小箭头为观测滑动方向, R值为应力形因子, 黑色弧线表示所选震源机制节面的等面积投影, 绿色弧线表示所反演的置信度为90%的应力模型的最大剪应力节面, 黄色箭头为此节面上的滑动方向。围绕S1、 S2、 S3的曲线为拉张轴、中间轴和压缩轴90%的置信区间; 右图中红色为主压应力, 蓝色为主张应力

Fig. 2 Stress field in the focal area of the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake.

表2 各断层面的几何参数和顶点位置

Table2 Geometrical parameters and vertex positions of each fault plane

断层	余震数量	走向/(°)		倾向/(°)		距离/(°)		顶点位置
		数值	标准差	数值	标准差	数值	标准差	φ_N/(°)	λ_E/(°)	深度/km
昭通-鲁甸	1023	266.10	0.466	86.42	0.456	0	0.029	27.11	103.39	3.39
								27.12	103.39	17.05
								27.11	103.27	17.05
								27.10	103.27	3.39
包谷垴-小河	595	336.67	0.633	88.41	0.545	0	0.038	27.01	103.42	2.42
								27.01	103.43	19.37
								27.13	103.37	19.37
								27.13	103.36	2.42

图3 采用鲁甸地震序列地震精定位数据拟合的断层面小地震分布在水平面(a)、断层面(b)和垂直于断层面的横断面(c)上的投影, (d)小地震距断层面的距离分布。AA'(BB')为断层上边界端点, DD为倾向, DF为距断层面距离, SD为走向距离, F为分布频次; 圆圈表示小地震的精确定位结果,红色圆点为包谷垴-小河断裂上的余震, 绿色圆点为昭通-鲁甸断裂上的余震, 粗线表示断层面的边界

Fig. 3 The fault planes fitted by fuzzy clustering and precise location of the Ludian seismic sequence.

图4 反演的应力张量产生的震源机制及其节面上的相对剪应力和相对正应力 a 相对剪切应力; b 相对正应力。底图颜色表示相对应力值的大小; NS为正走滑型, SS为走滑型, NF为正断型, U为未定型, TS为逆走滑型, TF为逆断型

Fig. 4 Source focal mechanism generated by the inverted stress tensor and relative shear and normal stress on the nodal planes.

图5 a 2条断裂的M-T图; b 2条断裂最初始部分的放大M-T图

Fig. 5 M-T plot along the two faults(a) and enlarged M-T plot of the initial parts along the two faults(b).

图6 2条断裂的地震矩对比图

Fig. 6 Comparison of seismic moments between the two faults.

参考文献 40

[1]	房立华, 吴建平, 王未来, 等. 2014. 云南鲁甸 M_S6.5 地震余震重定位及其发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 36(4): 1173—1185.
	FANG Li-hua, WU Jian-ping, WANG Wei-lai, et al. 2014. Relocation of the aftershock sequence of the M_S6.5 Ludian earthquake and its seismogenic structure[J]. Seismology and Geology, 36(4): 1173—1185 (in Chinese).
[2]	郭婷婷, 徐锡伟, 邢会林, 等. 2015. 共轭断层系统的非线性有限元模拟与震群模型讨论[J]. 地震地质, 37(2): 598—612. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2015.02.021.
	GUO Ting-ting, XU Xi-wei, XING Hui-lin, et al. 2015. Nonlinear finite-element simulation of conjugate faults system and associated earthquake swarm[J]. Seismology and Geology, 37(2): 598—612 (in Chinese). DOI
[3]	何骁慧, 倪四道, 刘杰. 2015. 2014年8月3日云南鲁甸M6.5地震破裂方向性研究[J]. 中国科学(地球科学), 45(3): 253—263.
	HE Xiao-hui, NI Si-dao, LIU Jie. 2015. Rupture directivity of the August 3rd, 2014 Ludian earthquake(Yunnan, China)[J]. Scientia Sinica(Terrae), 45(3): 253—263 (in Chinese).
[4]	黄凯珠, 林鹏, 唐春安, 等. 2002. 双轴加载下断续预置裂纹贯通机制的研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 21(6): 808—816.
	HUANG Kai-zhu, LIN Peng, TANG Chun-an, et al. 2002. Mechanisms of crack coalescence of pre-existing flaws under biaxial compression[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 21(6): 808—816 (in Chinese).
[5]	李兵, 谢富仁, 黄金水, 等. 2022. 龙门山断裂带大邑地震空区地应力状态与地震危险性[J]. 中国科学(地球科学), 52(7): 1409—1418.
	LI Bing, XIE Fu-ren, HUANG Jin-shui, et al. 2022. In situ stress state and seismic hazard in the Dayi seismic gap of the Longmenshan thrust belt[J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 65(7): 1388—1398. DOI
[6]	刘成利, 郑勇, 熊熊, 等. 2014. 利用区域宽频带数据反演鲁甸 M_S6.5 地震震源破裂过程[J]. 地球物理学报, 57(9): 3028—3037. DOI
	LIU Cheng-li, ZHENG Yong, XIONG Xiong, et al. 2014. Rupture process of M_S6.5 Ludian earthquake constrained by regional broadband seismograms[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 57(9): 3028—3037 (in Chinese).
[7]	刘东燕, 朱可善, 范景伟. 1991. 双向应力作用下X型断续节理岩体的强度特性研究[J]. 重庆建筑工程学院学报, 13(4): 40—46.
	LIU Dong-yan, ZHU Ke-shan, FAN Jing-wei. 1991. Strength properties of rock mass with bidirectional intermittent cross joints[J]. Journal of Chongqing Institute of Architecture and Engineering, 13(4): 40—16 (in Chinese).
[8]	马念杰, 马骥, 赵志强, 等. 2019. X型共轭剪切破裂: 地震产生的力学机理及其演化规律[J]. 煤炭学报, 44(6): 1647—1653.
	MA Nian-jie, MA Ji, ZHAO Zhi-qiang, et al. 2019. Mechanical mechanism and evolution of X-shaped conjugate shear fractures-seism[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 44(6): 1647—1653 (in Chinese).
[9]	万永革. 2019. 同一地震多个震源机制中心解的确定[J]. 地球物理学报, 62(12): 4718—4728. DOI
	WAN Yong-ge. 2019. Determination of center of several focal mechanisms of the same earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(12): 4718—4728 (in Chinese).
[10]	万永革. 2020. 震源机制与应力体系关系模拟研究[J]. 地球物理学报, 63(6): 2281—2296. DOI
	WAN Yong-ge. 2020. Simulation on relationship between stress regimes and focal mechanisms of earthquakes[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 63(6): 2281—2296 (in Chinese).
[11]	万永革. 2022. 震源机制水平应变花面应变的地震震源机制分类方法及序列震源机制总体特征分析[J/OL]. 地球科学. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/42.1874.p.20220715.1532.014.html.
	WAN Yong-ge. 2022. Focal mechanism classification based on areal strain of the horizontal strain rosette of focal mechanism and characteristic analysis of overall focal mechanism of the earthquake sequence[J/OL]. Earth Science. in Chinese).
[12]	万永革, 黄少华, 王福昌, 等. 2023. 2022年门源地震序列揭示的断层几何形状及滑动特性[J]. 地球物理学报, 66(7): 2796—2810.
	WAN Yong-ge, HUANG Shao-hua, WANG Fu-chang, et al. 2023. Fault geometry and slip characteristics revealed by the 2022 Menyuan earthquake sequence[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 66(7): 2796—2810 (in Chinese).
[13]	王安简, 陈运泰. 2021. 一种通过共轭地震确定地壳的内摩擦特性的方法[J]. 地球物理学报, 64(10): 3442—3451. DOI
	WANG An-jian, CHEN Yun-tai. 2021. A method of determination of the internal friction characteristics within the Earth’s crust through conjugate earthquakes[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(10): 3442—3451 (in Chinese).
[14]	魏强, 许力生, 李春来, 等. 2017. 2014年鲁甸 M_S6.5 地震序列发震构造的再研究[J]. 地震地质, 39(2): 374—389. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2017.02.008.
	WEI Qiang, XU Li-sheng, Ll Chun-lai, et al. 2017. A restudy of the seismogenic faults of the 2014 Ludian M_S6.5 earthquake sequence[J]. Seismology and Geology, 39(2): 374—389 (in Chinese). DOI
[15]	闻学泽, 杜芳, 易桂喜, 等. 2013. 川滇交界东段昭通、莲峰断裂带的地震危险背景[J]. 地球物理学报, 56(10): 3361—3372.
	WEN Xue-ze, DU Fang, YI Gui-xi, et al. 2013. Earthquake potential of the Zhaotong and Lianfeng fault zones of the eastern Sichuan-Yunnan border region[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 56(10): 3361—3372 (in Chinese).
[16]	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).
[17]	谢富仁, 张红艳, 崔效锋, 等. 2007. 延怀盆地活动断裂运动与现代构造应力场[J]. 地震地质, 29(4): 693—705. DOI
	XIE Fu-ren, ZHANG Hong-yan, CUI Xiao-feng, et al. 2007. Active fault movement and recent tectonic stress field in Yanhuai Basin[J]. Seismology and Geology, 29(4): 693—705. DOI
[18]	许力生, 张旭, 严川, 等. 2014. 基于勒夫波的鲁甸 M_S6.5 地震震源复杂性分析[J]. 地球物理学报, 57(9): 3006—3017. DOI
	XU Li-sheng, ZHANG Xu, YAN Chuan, et al. 2014. Analysis of the Love waves for the source complexity of the Ludian M_S6.5 earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 57(9): 3006—3017 (in Chinese).
[19]	徐锡伟, 江国焰, 于贵华, 等. 2014. 2014鲁甸6.5级地震发震断层判定及其构造属性讨论[J]. 地球物理学报, 57(9): 3060—3068. DOI
	XU Xi-wei, JIANG Guo-yan, YU Gui-hua, et al. 2014. Discussion on seismogenic fault of the Ludian M_S6.5 earthquake and its tectonic attribution[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 57(9): 3060—3068 (in Chinese).
[20]	张波, 李术才, 杨学英, 等. 2014. 含交叉裂隙节理岩体单轴压缩破坏机制研究[J]. 岩土力学, 35(7): 1863—1870.
	ZHANG Bo, LI Shu-cai, YANG Xue-ying, et al. 2014. Uniaxial compression failure mechanism of jointed rock mass with cross-cracks[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 35(7): 1863—1870 (in Chinese).
[21]	张广伟, 雷建设, 梁姗姗, 等. 2014. 2014年8月3日云南鲁甸 M_S6.5 地震序列重定位与震源机制研究[J]. 地球物理学报, 57(9): 3018—3027. DOI
	ZHANG Guang-wei, LEI Jian-she, LIANG Shan-shan, et al. 2014. Relocations and focal mechanism solutions of the 3 August 2014 Ludian, Yunnan M_S6.5 earthquake sequence[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 57(9): 3018—3027 (in Chinese).
[22]	张四昌. 1991. 中国大陆共轭地震构造研究[J]. 中国地震, 7(2): 71—78.
	ZHANG Si-chang. 1991. Studies of conjugate seismotectonics of the continental earthquakes in China[J]. Earthquake Research in China, 7(2): 71—78 (in Chinese).
[23]	张勇, 许力生, 陈运泰, 等. 2014. 2014年8月3日云南鲁甸 M_W6.1 (M_S6.5)地震破裂过程[J]. 地球物理学报, 57(9): 3052—3059. DOI
	ZHANG Yong, XU Li-sheng, CHEN Yun-tai, et al. 2014. Rupture process of the 3 August 2014 Ludian, Yunnan, M_W6.1 (M_S6.5)earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 57(9): 3052—3059 (in Chinese).
[24]	郑亚东, 王涛, 王新社. 2007. 神秘的109.4°——共轭变形带的夹角[J]. 地质科学, 42(1): 1—9.
	ZHENG Ya-dong, WANG Tao, WANG Xin-she. 2007. Miraculous 109.4°—The angle of conjugate deformation zones[J]. Chinese Journal of Geology, 42(1): 1—9 (in Chinese).
[25]	邹前进, 付玉华, 王观石, 等. 2023. 对称X型裂隙类岩体的力学特性及破坏机制研究[J]. 有色金属工程, 13(8): 110—119.
	ZOU Qian-jin, FU Yu-hua, WANG Guan-shi, et al. 2023. Experimental study on mechanical properties and failure mechanism of symmetrical X-type fractured rock mass[J]. Nonferrous Metals Engineering, 13(8): 110—119 (in Chinese).
[26]	Bobet A, Einstin H H. 1998. Fracture coalescence in rock-type material under uniaxial and biaxial compression[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 35(7): 863—888. DOI URL
[27]	Boulton C, Barth N C, Moore D E, et al. 2018. Frictional properties and 3-D stress analysis of the southern Alpine Fault, New Zealand[J]. Journal of Structural Geology, 114: 43—54. doi: 10.1016/J.JSG.2018.06.003.
[28]	Cai J T, Chen X B, Xu X W, et al. 2017. Rupture mechanism and seismotectonics of the M_S6.5 Ludian earthquake inferred from three-dimensional magnetotelluric imaging[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(3): 1275—1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071855. DOI URL
[29]	Collettini C, Tesei T, Scuderi M M, et al. 2019. Beyond Byerlee friction, weak faults and implications for slip behavior[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 519:245—263. doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2019.05.011.
[30]	Gustafson D E, Kessel W C. 1979. Fuzzy Clustering with a fuzzy covariance matrix[C]. Proceedings of the IEEECDC, San Diego California: 761—766.
[31]	Hanks T C, Kanamori H. 1979. A moment magnitude scale[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 84(B5): 2348—2350.
[32]	Niu Y F, Wang S, Zhu W, et al. 2020. The 2014 M_W6.1 Ludian earthquake: The application of RADARSAT-2 SAR interferometry and GPS for this conjugated ruptured event[J]. Remote Sensing, 12(1): 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12010099.
[33]	Scholz C. 1990. The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting[M]. Cambridge University Press, New York: 439.
[34]	Wan Y G. 2010. Contemporary tectonic stress field in China[J]. Earthquake Science, 23(4): 377—386. https://10.1007/s11589-010-0735-5. DOI URL
[35]	Wan Y G, Sheng S Z, Huang J C, et al. 2016. The grid search algorithm of tectonic stress tensor based on focal mechanism data and its application in the boundary zone of China, Vietnam and Laos[J]. Journal of Earth Science, 27(5): 777—785. doi: 10.1007/s12583-015-0649-1.
[36]	Wang M, Shen Z K. 2020. Present-day crustal deformation of continental China derived from GPS and its tectonic implications[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 125(2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB018774.
[37]	Xie Z, Zheng Y, Liu C, et al. 2015. Source parameters of the 2014 M_S6.5 Ludian earthquake sequence and their implications on the seismogenic structure[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 86(6): 1614—1621. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150085. DOI URL
[38]	Xu Z H, Wang S Y, Huang Y R, et al. 1992. Tectonic stress field of China inferred from a large number of small earthquakes[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 97(B8): 11867—11877.
[39]	Zhang P Z, Shen Z K, Wang M, et al. 2004. Continuous deformation of the Tibetan plateau from global positioning system data[J]. Geology, 32(9): 809—812. DOI URL
[40]	Zheng Y D, Zhang J J, Wang T. 2011. Puzzles and the maximum-effective-moment(MEM)criterion in structural geology[J]. Journal of structural geology, 33(9): 1394—1405.

基于区域构造应力场探讨2014年鲁甸地震余震活动发生在共轭断裂上的原因

DISCUSSION ON REASON WHY AFTERSHOCKS OF THE 2014 LUDIAN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRED ON THE CONJUGATED FAULTS BASED ON TECTONIC STRESS FIELD

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 40

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	万永革, 王昱茹, 靳志同. 2021年云南漾濞6.4级地震震源区地壳应力不均匀性研究[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(4): 1025-1040.
[2]	王喜龙, 罗银花, 金秀英, 杨梦尧, 孔祥瑞. 辽南地区断裂带的断层土壤气地球化学特征及其对区域应力调整的指示[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(3): 710-734.
[3]	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.
[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]	王晓山, 万永革. 汶川地震前震中周围地壳应力场及应力方向集中的特征[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(2): 363-377.
[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]	张致伟, 龙锋, 赵小艳, 王迪. 川滇地区的震源机制解及应力场特征[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(1): 170-187.
[8]	孙业君, 黄耘, 刘泽民, 郑建常, 江昊琳, 李婷婷, 叶青, 方韬. 郯庐断裂带鲁苏皖段及邻区构造应力场特征及其动力学意义[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(5): 1188-1207.
[9]	郭祥云, 尹海权, 汪贞杰, 杨辉. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞M6.4地震序列的矩心矩张量解及动力环境分析[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 806-826.
[10]	梁姗姗, 徐志国, 张广伟, 邹立晔, 刘艳琼, 郭铁龙. 2021年云南漾濞M_S6.4地震震源区断层系统的几何复杂性[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 827-846.
[11]	王璞, 王成虎, 王洪, 陈念, 周昊, 魏学勇. 利用孔壁竖向裂缝方位数据分析沂沭断裂带的地应力场特征[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(6): 1316-1334.
[12]	崔华伟, 郑建常, 张正帅, 李冬梅, 柴光斌. 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, 2020, 42(6): 1432-1445.
[13]	梁姗姗, 徐志国, 盛书中, 张广伟, 赵博, 邹立晔. 2019年四川长宁6.0级地震主震及中强余震(M_S≥4.0)的震源机制及其应力场[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(3): 547-561.
[14]	阎春恒, 周斌, 李莎, 向巍, 郭培兰. 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, 2020, 42(3): 562-580.
[15]	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.