利用PALM构建三峡地震台网完整的地震目录及2017—2018年巴东震群的成因机理

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2025.04.20230143

地震地质 ›› 2025, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (4): 1152-1166.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2025.04.20230143

利用PALM构建三峡地震台网完整的地震目录及2017—2018年巴东震群的成因机理

周本伟¹⁾(), 房立华²⁾^,^*(), 张丽芬¹⁾, 王杰¹⁾, 王世广³⁾, 刘骅标⁴⁾

1)中国地震局地震研究所, 中国地震局地震大地测量重点实验室, 武汉 430071
2)中国地震局地震预测研究所, 北京 100036
3)中国地震局地球物理研究所, 北京 100081
4)中国电建集团贵阳勘测设计研究院有限公司, 贵阳 550081

收稿日期:2024-05-16 修回日期:2024-10-23 出版日期:2025-08-20 发布日期:2025-10-09
通讯作者: *房立华, 男, 1981年生, 博士, 研究员, 主要从事地震数据自动处理和地球内部结构研究, E-mail: flh@cea-igp.ac.cn。
作者简介:
周本伟, 男, 1993年生, 2020年于中国地震局地球物理研究所获固体地球物理专业硕士学位, 工程师, 主要从事地震数据自动处理相关工作, E-mail: zbw1015529546@163.com。
基金资助:
中国地震局地震监测预警业务骨干专项(CEA-JCYJ-202501048); 中国地震局地震研究所基本科研业务专项(IS202236330); 中国电力建设股份有限公司科技项目(DJ-ZDXM-2020-55)

CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPLETE EARTHQUAKE CATALOG OF THE THREE GORGES SEISMIC NETWORK USING PALM AND THE GENESIS MECHANISM OF THE BADONG EARTHQUAKE SWARM FROM 2017 TO 2018

ZHOU Ben-wei¹⁾(), FANG Li-hua²⁾^,^*(), ZHANG Li-fen¹⁾, WANG Jie¹⁾, WANG Shi-guang³⁾, LIU Hua-biao⁴⁾

1)China Earthquake Administration, Key Laboratory of Earthquake Geodesy, Institute of Seismology, Wuhan 430071, China
2)Institute of Earthquake Forecasting, China Earthquake Administrator, Beijing 100036, China
3)Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100081, China
4)Power China Guiyang Engineering Corporation Limited, Guiyang 550081, China

Received:2024-05-16 Revised:2024-10-23 Online:2025-08-20 Published:2025-10-09

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

三峡库区于2017年和2018年先后发生4次M4.0以上地震。文中使用三峡台网12个固定台的连续波形数据, 利用PALM算法获得了2次地震序列的高分辨率地震目录。将PALM目录结果与人工目录进行对比分析, 结果表明, 所获得的地震数量比人工目录多3~4倍, 震中差异平均值为0.57km, 发震时刻差异平均值为-0.43s, 震级差异平均值为0.04。2017年M4.3和M4.1地震发生在低水位期, 序列主要沿NE和NW 2个方向展布, 余震主要分布在3.0~5.0km深度, 且主要分布于滑脱层中, 靠近背斜褶皱核部地震较少, 而两翼地震较多。2018年M4.5和M4.1地震发生在高水位期, 序列主要分布在SWW走向、 NW倾向的断裂上, 余震主要分布在5.0~7.0km深度处, 呈线性分布, 地震活动宽度很窄且没有扩张的迹象, 渗透率较高的破坏带充当流体通道, 流体注入断层导致孔隙压力变大使断层失稳滑动, 余震序列上方的滑脱面阻碍余震继续向上迁移。

关键词: 地震目录, 地震序列, 滑脱褶皱, 地震活动性, 发震构造, PALM

Abstract:

The frequency of earthquakes in the Three Gorges Reservoir has increased significantly since the first water storage of the Three Gorges Reservoir in 2003. Four earthquakes above M4.0 occurred in 2017 and 2018, and the largest earthquake was the M4.5 earthquake on October 11, 2018. All four earthquakes were located on the north bank of the reservoir, about 2km away from the shore. The number of earthquakes omitted from the manual catalog in the Three Gorges reservoir area is high, and the completeness of the earthquake catalog is poor, which limits the understanding of the earthquake genesis mechanism in the reservoir area. To gain a deeper understanding of this earthquake sequence, this article utilizes continuous waveform data from 12 fixed stations of the Three Gorges Network, employing the PALM algorithm to obtain high-resolution earthquake catalogs for two earthquake sequences. It then discusses their causes.

The analysis shows that the PALM catalog is 3-4 times larger than the manual catalog, and the mean value of the difference between the epicenters of the two catalogs is 0.57km, the mean value of the difference between the moments of onset of the earthquakes is -0.43s, and the mean value of the difference between the magnitudes of the earthquakes is 0.04. The earthquake precise positioning results show the aftershock epicenters of the 2017 M4.3 and M4.1 earthquakes are mainly spread along two approximately orthogonal directions, NE and NW; the NE-oriented profiles show that the depth of the epicenters is in the range of 3~5km in general, with certain wave-like undulation characteristics; the NW-oriented profiles show the characteristics of being shallow on the SE side, and deeper on the NW side, with a slight fluctuation in the middle. All of them have no obvious tendency behaviors. The epicenters of the aftershocks of the 2018 M4.5 and M4.1 earthquakes are mainly distributed along the SWW direction, and remain more discrete in the NW direction. The depth of the earthquake source is generally characterized by SW shallow NE deep, and the aftershocks are mainly distributed at a depth of 5.0~7.0km, showing a narrow linear band structure. The seismogenic fault of the 2018 Badong earthquake sequence was high-angle west-dipping, and the distribution of earthquake sources was relatively more concentrated.

According to the regional geological structure, the main shock and most of the aftershocks of the 2017 Badong earthquake sequence, which was in the period of low water level of the reservoir, were mainly concentrated in the Thick Layer Limestone of the Jialingjiang group, which is developed by joint fissures at a depth of about 5km, and the limestone are susceptible to destabilizing sliding due to the long-term dissolving and eroding action of the groundwater, and a few of the aftershocks were distributed in the strata of the second, third, and fourth sections of the middle Triassic Badong group, and the stratigraphy of the second and fourth segments of the Badong group is characterized by the purple-red siltstone and gray-green mudstone interbedded as a characteristic, the stratigraphy of the third section of the Badong group is dominated by gray and light gray-green graystone and marl, which is easy to be weakened and softened to produce unstable sliding under the erosive action of groundwater. While the 2018 Badong earthquake sequence is in the period of high water level, most of the aftershocks are mainly concentrated in the Permian System geological formation around 7km, and the earthquake sequence migrated upward to a depth of 5km without continuing to expand, and it is speculated that the 2018 Badong earthquake sequence may have been prevented from continuing to migrate upward by the slip surface. The 2017 M4.3 earthquake caused the expansion of some rifts, and the effects of reservoir water erosion and dissolution on earthquake activity gradually increased, especially in the Limestone zone, where the reservoir water continued to dissolve along the original or newborn rifts for a long time, causing the continuous expansion of pore space, and the highly permeable flow channels transported fluids from the existing rift network to the faults, which contributed to the occurrence of the 2018 Badong M4.5 earthquake and the earthquake sequence became a linear belt-like structure.

The analysis suggests that the occurrence of the 2017 Badong M4.3 earthquake is related to the slip-fold tectonics, which is a earthquake activity that occurs in the wings of the fold tectonics, and the rest of the earthquakes are mainly distributed in the slip layer, with fewer earthquakes close to the nucleus of the dorsal folds and more earthquakes in the two flanks. The 2018 Badong M4.5 and M4.1 earthquake sequences were about 1.0km in length, SWW in strike and NW in tendency, with a narrow distribution of earthquakes and no migratory features, showing a narrow band structure. The fracture zones with high permeability acted as a fluid pathway. The injection of fluid into the faults resulted in the unstable sliding of the faults with the change of the pore pressures. The slipping layer above the aftershock sequences prevented the earthquakes from continuing to migrate upwards.

Key words: earthquake catalog, earthquake sequence, detachment fold, seismicity, seismogenic structure, PALM

周本伟, 房立华, 张丽芬, 王杰, 王世广, 刘骅标. 利用PALM构建三峡地震台网完整的地震目录及2017—2018年巴东震群的成因机理[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(4): 1152-1166.

ZHOU Ben-wei, FANG Li-hua, ZHANG Li-fen, WANG Jie, WANG Shi-guang, LIU Hua-biao. CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPLETE EARTHQUAKE CATALOG OF THE THREE GORGES SEISMIC NETWORK USING PALM AND THE GENESIS MECHANISM OF THE BADONG EARTHQUAKE SWARM FROM 2017 TO 2018[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2025, 47(4): 1152-1166.

图/表 10

图1 地震台站和震中分布图 a 黑色三角形表示三峡台网的台站, 黑色圆圈中的三角形为本文挑选的台站, 蓝色曲线为长江。b 图a中黑色方框的放大图, 红色圆圈表示地震序列一, 蓝色圆圈表示地震序列二

Fig. 1 Distribution of seismic stations and epicenters.

图2 按震中距排列的关联事件波形地震发震时刻为2017年6月26日22时25分00秒; 震中位置为(131.046°N, 10.314°E); 震级为ML2.6; 深度为6km。红色和蓝色实线分别代表自动拾取的P波和S波到时

Fig. 2 Waveforms align by their epicentral distance.

表1 最小一维速度模型

Table1 Minimum 1D velocity model

深度/km	V_P/km·s^-1	V_S/km·s^-1	V_P/V_S
0.0~4.0	5.04	2.99	1.71
4.0~6.0	5.40	3.00	1.85
6.0~10.0	5.76	3.32	1.74
10.0~16.0	5.88	3.35	1.76
16.0~20.0	6.16	3.51	1.70
20.0~25.0	6.54	3.70	1.73
25.0~35.0	6.83	3.90	1.64
35.0~40.0	7.47	4.27	1.76

图3 PALM目录与人工地震目录的地震-频次分布对比图 2017年6月(a)和2018年10月(b)地震的地震-频次图

Fig. 3 Comparison of the seismic-frequency distribution of the PALM catalogue with the artificial seismic catalogue.

表2 地震序列一和地震序列二与人工目录对比

Table2 Earthquake catalog comparisons for Seismic Sequence Ⅰ and Ⅱ with the manual catalog

序列	震中位置差异/km		发震时刻差异/s		震级差异
序列	平均值	标准差	平均值	标准差	平均值	标准差
序列一	0.62	0.31	-0.37	0.2	-0.02	0.16
序列二	0.51	0.32	-0.49	0.27	0.1	0.1

图4 PALM目录与人工目录在震中位置、发震时刻、震级差异对比图 a—c 地震序列一的人工目录与PALM目录在震中位置、发震时刻、震级差异统计图; d—f 地震序列二的人工目录与PALM目录在震中位置、发震时刻、震级差异统计图

Fig. 4 Comparison of the PALM catalogue and the manual catalogue in terms of epicentre location, moment of onset and magnitude differences.

图5 地震目录震中分布图及剖面图 a 2017年巴东地震序列(序列一)的人工目录、 PAL目录、 MESS目录。圆圈、圆圈大小分别为震中位置, 与震级成比例, 颜色代表地震深度; 深蓝色、浅蓝色五角星分别为主震、次主震位置。b 颜色及图例同2017年巴东地震序列(序列一); c 蓝色虚线框表示地震水平分布横截面Ⅰ、 Ⅱ、 Ⅲ, 圆圈代表地震, 色标代表深度; 沿AA'、 BB'、 CC'剖面的地震深度分布(图c下侧), 黑色圆点为地震, 五角星对应主震震中位置, 红色虚线为拟合曲线。d 黑色圆点表示沿着DD'、 EE'、 FF'剖面的深度分布图

Fig. 5 Earthquake catalog epicenters distribution and profiles.

图6 地震序列一、序列二时空分布图 a 地震序列一的时空分布, 五角星为对应的主震震中位置, 不同颜色代表地震发生的时间; b 地震序列二的时空分布图

Fig. 6 Spatial and temporal distribution map of earthquake sequences Ⅰ and Ⅱ.

图7 地震序列二在不同时段的震中分布及对应的深度剖面图 a—c 不同时段的震中分布, 圆圈代表地震, 色标代表深度; 沿CC'剖面的地震深度分布图见下侧, 黑色圆点表示地震, 蓝色五角星对应主震震中位置

Fig. 7 Distribution of epicenters of Sequence Ⅱ at different time periods and corresponding depth profiles.

图8 巴东地震序列深部展布特征概化模型

Fig. 8 Generalized model of the deep spreading characteristics of the Badong earthquakes sequence.

参考文献 39

[1]	柴波, 殷坤龙. 2009. 三峡库区巴东新城区库岸三叠系巴东组层间软弱带[J]. 工程地质学报, 17(6): 809—816.
	CHAI Bo, YIN Kun-long. 2009. Interlayer weakness zones in Badong formation of middle Triassic forming bank slopes of three gorges reservoir in new Badong county[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 17(6): 809—816 (in Chinese).
[2]	蒋策, 吴建平, 房立华. 2018. 地震检测与震相自动拾取研究[J]. 地震学报, 40(1): 45—57.
	JIANG Ce, WU Jian-ping, FANG Li-hua. 2018. Earthquake detection and automatic phase picking[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 40(1): 45—57 (in Chinese).
[3]	李井冈, 张丽芬, 廖武林, 等. 2018. 褶皱构造中的地震—2017年三峡库区巴东M4.3地震序列成因讨论[J]. 地球物理学报, 61(9): 3701—3712. DOI
	LI Jing-gang, ZHANG Li-fen, LIAO Wu-lin, et al. 2018. Earthworks in the fold structure: the genesis of the M4.3 earthquake sequence in the Three Gorges resolvoir area in 2017[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 61(9): 3701—3712 (in Chinese).
[4]	李胜乐, 严尊国, 薛军蓉, 等. 2003. 长江三峡水库蓄水后的首发微震群活动[J]. 大地测量与地球动力学, (4): 75—79.
	LI Sheng-le, YAN Zun-guo, XUE Jun-rong, et al. 2003. First microquake swarm activity since storage in three gorges reservoir[J]. Geodesy and Geodynamics, (4): 75—79 (in Chinese).
[5]	廖诗荣, 杨婷, 张红才, 等. 2021. 2021年云南双柏 M_S5.1 地震序列的快速检测与精定位研究[J]. 地震研究, 44(4): 515—520.
	LIAO Shi-rong, YANG Ting, ZHANG Hong-cai, et al. 2021. Fast Detection and Relocation of the 2021 Shuangbai M_S5.1 Earthquake Sequence in Yunnan[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 44(4): 515—520 (in Chinese).
[6]	廖武林, 张丽芬, 姚运生. 2009. 三峡水库地震活动特征研究[J]. 地震地质, 31(4): 707—714. DOI
	LIAO Wu-lin, ZHANG Li-fen, YAO Yun-sheng. 2009. Characteristics of seismicity in the Three Gorges Reservoir area[J]. Seismology and Geology, 31(4): 707—714 (in Chinese).
[7]	刘芳, 孙冬军, 周一剑, 等. 2023. 基于自动检测方法的福建地区断裂带地震活动性研究[J]. 地震学报, 45(3): 538—549.
	LIU Fang, SUN Dong-jun, ZHOU Yi-jian, et al. 2023. Study on seismicity characteristics of fault zones in Fujian area based on automatic seismic detection method[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 45(3): 538—549 (in Chinese).
[8]	王杰, 王秋良, 黄颂, 等. 2018. 湖北巴东地区滑脱构造与地震活动特征[J]. 大地测量与地球动力学, 38(3): 225—232.
	WANG Jie, WANG Qiu-liang, HUANG Song, et al. 2018. Decollement structures and seismic activity of Badong area in Hubei Province[J]. Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics, 38(3): 225—232 (in Chinese).
[9]	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-kai, 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).
[10]	吴海波, 申学林, 王杰, 等. 2018. 三峡库区上地壳三维速度结构的双差层析成像研究[J]. 地球物理学报, 61(7): 2802—2814. DOI
	WU Hai-bo, SHEN Xue-lin, WANG Jie, et al. 2018. Three dimensional velocity structure of upper crust in the Three Gorges Reservoir area derived from double-difference tomography[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 61(7): 2802—2814 (in Chinese).
[11]	吴海波, 王杰, 邹正波, 等. 2021. 三峡库区秭归与巴东交界 M_S4.0 地震矩张量及应力环境研究[J]. 地球物理学报, 64(2): 484—497. DOI
	WU Hai-bo, WANG Jie, ZOU Zheng-bo, et al. 2021. Growth tensors and the stress environment of M_S4.0 stress in the junction area between Zigui and Badong, Three Gorges reservoir[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(2): 484—497 (in Chinese).
[12]	张丽芬, 廖武林, 李井冈, 等. 2016. 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, 38(3): 747—759.
	ZHANG Li-fen, LIAO Wu-lin, LI Jing-gang, et al. 2016. Analysis on the 2013 Badong M5.1 earthquake sequence and the seismogenic structure[J]. Seismology and Geology, 38(3): 747—759 (in Chinese).
[13]	赵凌云, 王杰, 陈俊华, 等. 2018. 2014年秭归M4.7、M4.5地震序列与2017年秭归-巴东M4.3、 M4.1地震序列对比研究[J]. 大地测量与地球动力学, 38(3): 233—238+253.
	ZHAO Ling-yun, WANG Jie, CHEN Jun-hua, et al. 2018. Comparative study of seismic sequence of 2014 Zigui M4.7, M4.5 and 2017 Zigui-Badong M4.3, M4.1 earthquakes[J]. Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics, 38(3): 233—238+253 (in Chinese).
[14]	赵凌云, 张辉, 陈俊华, 等. 2014. 基于CAP方法的2013湖北巴东5.1级地震震源机制与发震构造研究[J]. 地震工程学报, 36(4): 1014—1018.
	ZHAO Ling-yun, ZHANG Hui, CHEN Jun-hua, et al. 2014. Focal mechanism solutions and seismogenic structure of the Badong M_S5.1 earthquake of 2013 using the CAP method[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 36(4): 1014—1018 (in Chinese).
[15]	赵明, 唐淋, 陈石, 等. 2021. 基于深度学习到时拾取自动构建长宁地震前震目录[J]. 地球物理学报, 64(1): 54—66.
	ZHAO Ming, TANG Lin, CHEN Shi, et al. 2021. Machine learning based automatic foreshock catalog building for the 2019 M_S6.0 Changning, Sichuan earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 64(1): 54—66 (in Chinese).
[16]	赵旭, 李强, 蔡晋安. 2007. 三峡库首区最小一维速度模型研究[J]. 大地测量与地球动力学, 27(S1): 1—7.
	ZHAO Xu, LI Qiang, CAI Jin-an. 2007. On minimum 1D velocity structure model applied in Three Gorges reservoir area[J]. Geodesy and Geodynamics, 27(S1): 1—7 (in Chinese).
[17]	Allen R V. 1978. Automatic earthquake recognition and timing from single traces[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 68(5): 1521—1532.
[18]	Baillard C, Crawford W, Ballu V, et al. 2014. An automatic kurtosis-based P- and S-phase picker designed for local seismic networks[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(1): 394—409.
[19]	Davis S D, Pennington W D. 1989. Induced seismic deformation in the Cogdell oil field of west Texas[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 79: 1477—1495.
[20]	Deichmann N, Giardini D. 2009. Earthquakes induced by the stimulation of an enhanced geothermal system below Basel(Switzerland)[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 80(5): 784—798.
[21]	Ding H Y, Zhou Y J, Ge Z X, et al. 2023. High-resolution seismicity imaging and early aftershock migration of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş(SE Türkiye)M_W7.9 & 7.8 earthquake doublet[J]. Earthquake Science, 36(6): 417—432. doi: 10.1016/j.eqs.2023.06.002.
[22]	Ellsworth W L. 2013. Injection-induced earthquakes[J]. Science, 341(6142): 1225942.
[23]	Holland A A. 2013. Earthquakes triggered by hydraulic fracturing in south-central Oklahoma[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3): 1784—1792.
[24]	Horton S. 2012. Disposal of hydrofracking waste fluid by injection into subsurface aquifers triggers earthquake swarm in central Arkansas with potential for damaging earthquake[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 83(2): 250—260.
[25]	Kim W Y. 2013. Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection into a deep well in Youngstown, Ohio[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth, 118(7): 3506—3518.
[26]	Lei X L, Huang D J, Su J R, et al. 2017. Fault reactivation and earthquakes with magnitudes of up to M_W4.7 induced by shale-gas hydraulic fracturing in Sichuan Basin, China[J]. Scientific Reports, 7(1): 7971.
[27]	Lei X L, Wang Z W, Su J R. 2019. The December 2018 M_L5.7 and January 2019 M_L5.3 earthquakes in South Sichuan Basin induced by shale gas hydraulic fracturing[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 90(3): 1099—1110.
[28]	Liu M, Zhang M, Zhu W, et al. 2020. Rapid characterization of the July 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence from raw seismic data using machine learning phase picker[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(4): e2019GL086189. doi: 10.1029/2019GL086189.
[29]	Pennington W D, Davis S D. 1986. The evolution of seismic barriers and asperities caused by the depressuring of fault planes in oil and gas fields of south Texas[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 76(4): 939—948.
[30]	Raggiunti M, Keir D, Pagli C, et al. 2023. Evidence of fluid induced earthquake swarms from high resolution earthquake relocation in the Main Ethiopian Rift[J]. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 24: e2022GC010765. doi: 10.1029/2022GC010765.
[31]	Schultz R, Woo J U, Pepin K, et al. 2023. Disposal from in situ bitumen recovery induced the M_L5.6 Peace River earthquake[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 50(6): e2023GL102940.
[32]	Van E T, Goutbeek F, Haak H, et al. 2006. Seismic hazard due to small-magnitude, shallow-source, induced earthquakes in The Netherlands[J]. Engineering Geology, 87(1-2): 105—121.
[33]	Waldhauser F, Ellsworth W L. 2000. A double-difference earthquake location algorithm: Method and application to the northern Hayward fault, California[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90(6): 1353—1368.
[34]	Zhang F X, Wang R J, Chen Y F, et al. 2022. Spatiotemporal variations in earthquake triggering mechanisms during multistage hydraulic fracturing in western Canada[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(8): e2022JB024744.
[35]	Zhang M, Liu M, Feng T, et al. 2022. LOC-FLOW: An end-to-end machine learning-based high-precision earthquake location workflow[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 93(5): 2426—2438.
[36]	Zhang Y, An Y, Long F, et al. 2021. Short-term foreshock and aftershock patterns of the 2021 M_S6.4 Yangbi earthquake sequence[J]. Seismological research letters, 93(1): 21—32.
[37]	Zhou Y J, Ghosh A, Fang L H, et al. 2021a. A high-resolution seismic catalog for the 2021 M_S6.4/M_W6.1 Yangbi earthquake sequence, Yunnan, China: Application of AI picker and matched filter[J]. Earthquake Doublet. Earthq Sci, 34(5): 390—398.
[38]	Zhou Y J, Yue H, Fang L H, et al. 2021b. An earthquake detection and location architecture for continuous seismograms: Phase picking, association, location, and matched filter(PALM)[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 93(1): 413—425.
[39]	Zhou Y J, Yue H, Kong Q K, et al. 2019. Hybrid event detection and phase-picking algorithm using convolutional and recurrent neural networks[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 90(3): 1079—1087. doi: 10.1785/0220180319.

利用PALM构建三峡地震台网完整的地震目录及2017—2018年巴东震群的成因机理

CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPLETE EARTHQUAKE CATALOG OF THE THREE GORGES SEISMIC NETWORK USING PALM AND THE GENESIS MECHANISM OF THE BADONG EARTHQUAKE SWARM FROM 2017 TO 2018

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 39

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	李林林, 姜文亮, 李德文, 焦其松, 罗毅, 李永生, 田云锋, 李营营. 2023年12月18日积石山 M_S6.2 地震地表破裂及发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(4): 1058-1074.
[2]	郭钊吾, 鲁人齐, 张金玉, 房立华, 刘冠伸, 吴熙彦, 孙晓, 祁诗淼. 2025年1月7日西藏定日M_S6.8强震发震断层三维模型与地震构造环境[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 671-688.
[3]	陈翰林, 王勤彩, 高锦瑞, 李君. 2025年西藏定日M_S6.8地震序列发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 747-760.
[4]	尹欣欣, 左可桢, 赵翠萍, 蔡润. 西藏定日 M_S6.8 地震重定位及前震序列识别[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 850-868.
[5]	吴晓菲, 孟令媛. 2025年1月7日西藏定日6.8级地震序列特征及烈度比较分析[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 869-880.
[6]	王鹏, 戴宗辉, 孔雪, 李铂, 徐长朋, 张梦昕. 西藏定日 M_S6.8 地震序列应力场演化特征分析[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(3): 881-896.
[7]	何鹏宇, 李涛, 陈竹新, 陈杰. 西南天山喀什背斜东倾伏端的生长演化和地貌响应: 基于地质地貌、地震反射剖面和磁性地层数据的综合分析[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(2): 369-383.
[8]	王雪竹, 吴传勇, 刘建明, 臧柯智, 袁海洋, 高瞻, 张金烁, 马云潇. 2024年1月23日新疆乌什 M_S7.1 地震序列重定位与发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(2): 488-506.
[9]	石峰, 梁明剑, 罗全星, 乔俊香, 张达, 王鑫, 易文星, 张佳伟, 张迎峰, 张会平, 李涛, 李安. 2025年1月7日西藏定日6.8级地震发震构造与同震地表破裂特征[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(1): 1-15.
[10]	许英才, 郭祥云. 2023年平原M_S5.5地震矩张量反演及发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 2025, 47(1): 284-305.
[11]	王鑫, 张珂, 王玥. 内蒙古阿鲁科尔沁旗M_S5.9与M_S4.7地震序列特征及其发震构造分析[J]. 地震地质, 2024, 46(6): 1314-1331.
[12]	孙晓, 鲁人齐, 张金玉, 王伟, 苏鹏. 川滇实验场地区活动地块边界新划分参考方案[J]. 地震地质, 2024, 46(5): 1027-1047.
[13]	许永强, 雷建设, 胡晓辉. 2021年5月21日云南漾濞M_S6.4地震序列双差重定位及其构造意义[J]. 地震地质, 2024, 46(5): 1066-1090.
[14]	于悦颖, 李正楷, 杨云, 康清清, 钱佳威, 王俊菲, 瞿旻, 周昱辰, 李迎春, 许田. 2022年东台地震序列区域速度结构和精确定位[J]. 地震地质, 2024, 46(3): 627-644.
[15]	陈翰林, 王勤彩, 张金川, 刘瑞丰. 四川芦山2022年6月 M_S6.1 地震的发震构造及其与2013年4月 M_S7.0 地震关系的探讨[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(5): 1233-1246.