雷波断裂带全新世活动证据

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2024.01.009

地震地质 ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (1): 141-161.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2024.01.009

雷波断裂带全新世活动证据

张国霞¹⁾(), 孙浩越¹⁾^,^*(), 李伟¹^,²⁾, 孙稳¹^,³⁾

¹⁾ 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
²⁾ 中国地震局第二监测中心, 西安 710054
³⁾ 中铁工程设计咨询集团有限公司, 北京 100055

收稿日期:2023-05-18 修回日期:2023-07-28 出版日期:2024-02-20 发布日期:2024-03-22
通讯作者: *孙浩越, 男, 1986年生, 副研究员, 主要从事青藏高原及周缘活动断裂的研究工作, E-mail: sunhaoyue@ies.ac.cn。
作者简介:
张国霞, 女, 1998年生, 2020年于合肥工业大学获资源勘查工程专业学士学位, 现为中国地震局地质研究所构造地质学专业硕士研究生, 主要从事活动构造方向研究, E-mail: guoxia2023@163.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(42272272); 中国地震局地质研究所基本科研业务专项(IGCEA1801); 四川省活动断层普查项目凉山州(含攀枝花地区)活动断层普查子项目马边—雷波地区1︰5万活动断层地质填图项目(513420201900050102)

EVIDENCE FOR THE HOLOCENE ACTIVITY OF THE LEIBO FAULT ZONE

ZHANG Guo-xia¹⁾(), SUN Hao-yue¹⁾^,^*(), LI Wei¹^,²⁾, SUN Wen¹^,³⁾

¹⁾ State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics, Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100029, China
²⁾ Second Monitoring and Application Center, China Earthquake Administration, Xi'an 710054, China
³⁾ China Railway Engineering Design and Consulting Group Co., Ltd, Beijing 100055, China

Received:2023-05-18 Revised:2023-07-28 Online:2024-02-20 Published:2024-03-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

荥经-马边-盐津构造带是青藏高原东南缘与四川盆地之间的重要边界构造带, 虽然晚第四纪以来地震活动频繁, 但构造带内各断裂的活动性尚不明确, 对认识和评价区域现今地壳变形模式和地震危险性带来了很大的不确定性。特别是构造带南段的雷波断裂带附近曾发生过多次6级以上强震, 但该断裂带的研究程度很低, 其最新活动时代的厘定还缺乏可靠依据。为解决这一问题, 文中基于高分辨率遥感影像解译和野外地质地貌调查, 在雷波断裂带的北支和南支断裂上分别开展了古地震探槽研究工作。基于古地震事件识别标志, 在2条分支断裂上分别揭示了3次和7次古地震事件, 相关放射性碳样品的测年结果限定了北支断裂3次古地震事件的发震时间分别为21190—20590BC(EP1)、 20550—12120BC(EP2)和12090BC之后(EP3), 而南支断裂最新的2次古地震事件的发震时间为9270—5040BC(EL6)和5000BC之后(EL7)。古地震探槽研究结果表明, 雷波断裂带在全新世以来曾发生过多次地表破裂型强震事件, 为全新世活动断裂; 其北支和南支断裂揭露的事件互不相同, 指示雷波断裂带的分支断裂为独立的发震构造。通过收集并分析1920年以来中国西部地区产生地表破裂的走滑型地震的震级, 认为雷波断裂带上揭露的古地震事件的震级下限为6.5级, 并估计断裂带具有发生7级以上地震的能力。

关键词: 荥经-马边-盐津构造带, 雷波断裂带, 古地震

Abstract:

The Yingjing-Mabian-Yanjin tectonic zone(YMYTZ)is an important boundary structure between the southeastern margin of the Tibet Plateau and the Sichuan Basin. It consists of several small-scale secondary faults with different strikes and is generally characterized by the intersections of north-northwest oriented longitudinal faults and nearly east-west oriented transverse faults. The YMYTZ is seismically very active in the late Quaternary and hosted several moderate-strong earthquakes, including two M≥7 earthquakes since 1216AD, namely the 1216 Mahu earthquake and the 1974 Daguanbei earthquake. After the Daguanbei earthquake, several M≥6 earthquakes and hundreds of M≥5 earthquakes occurred along the YMYTZ to date, implying it is a newly generated seismotectonic belt. Even so, the activity of each fault is still unclear, bringing out great uncertainty in understanding the current crustal deformation pattern and in evaluating the regional seismic potential. Specifically, although several M≥6 earthquakes have occurred along the Leibo fault zone in the southern segment of the YMYTZ, the late Quaternary activity of the fault zone has not been well determined due to insufficient work as well as subsequent lack of solid evidence. The Leibo fault zone strikes NE-SW and spreads on the southeast flank of the Chenqiangyan-Shanzhagang anticline. It starts at the Huanglang township near the Mahu Lake, cuts through the Jingkou Mountain, Lianhuashi, and Leibo, and extends southwestwards to the vicinity of Lianlajue. The latest investigation shows that the Leibo fault zone consists of four subparallel right-lateral strike-slip faults named F₁—F₄ from the north to the south, respectively. These fault branches together constitute a 43km-long and 10km-wide structural belt. Previous paleoseismic work along the Leibo fault zone found that the faults ruptured the late Pleistocene sedimentary layers with their upward terminations covered by the undeformed Holocene deposits, implying it was active in the late Pleistocene and has not been active since the Holocene. However, the ground surface traces of the Leibo fault zone are the most obvious among the faults in the YMYTZ, and recent seismologic studies show strong seismic activity for the Leibo fault zone, bringing out a controversy about whether it is active in the Holocene or not.

To address the late Quaternary activity of the Leibo fault zone, we conducted detailed indoor deformed geomorphic feature interpretation on remote sensing imageries like 2m-resolution GF-2 imagery and high-resolution imageries on Google Earth, and further mapped the fault traces in the field using an unmanned aerial vehicle(UAV)derived digital orthographs and digital surface models(DSM). Based on the geological and geomorphological surveys, two trenches were excavated at Pengjiashan and Luohangou along the northern(F₂)and southern(F₄)branches of the Leibo fault zone respectively. On the trench walls, surface-rupturing paleoearthquakes were identified for each fault according to criteria for faulting events like cut-and-cover structures, scarps, and colluvial wedges. Subsequently, we collected and dated several radiocarbon samples from the sedimentary layers immediately before and after the rupturing events, and finally carried out stratigraphic sequence calibration using the acquired ages with the OxCal 4.4 program to constrain the timings of the revealed paleoearthquakes.

According to the identification criteria of paleoseismic events, it was revealed 3 paleoearthquakes in the Pengjiashan trench on the northern fault branch(F₂)and another 7 rupturing events in the Luohangou trench along the southern fault branch(F₄). Radiocarbon sample dating constrain the ages of the paleoearthquakes along F₂ to be 21190—20590BC(EP1), 20550—12120BC(EP2), and after 12090BC(EP3), while the latest two paleoseismic events on F₄ occurred 9270—5040BC(EL6)and after 5000BC(EL7). Our paleoseismic studies show that the LFZ has experienced several surface-rupturing earthquakes in the Holocene, verifying it is a Holocene active fault zone. Moreover, the ages of the paleoseismic events revealed on two fault branches do not overlap with each other, suggesting they are different paleoearthquakes so that the fault branches in the Leibo fault zone are independent seismogenic structures. By collecting and analyzing the magnitudes of strike-slipping earthquakes that have generated surface ruptures in western China since 1920, it is believed that the minimum magnitudes of the paleoearthquakes determined on the Leibo fault zone are 6.5. Through the empirical relationships between magnitude and surface rupture length, it is estimated that the LFZ has the capability to produce an earthquake with M≥7.

Key words: Yingjing-Mabian-Yanjin tectonic zone, Leibo fault zone, paleoearthquake

张国霞, 孙浩越, 李伟, 孙稳. 雷波断裂带全新世活动证据[J]. 地震地质, 2024, 46(1): 141-161.

ZHANG Guo-xia, SUN Hao-yue, LI Wei, SUN Wen. EVIDENCE FOR THE HOLOCENE ACTIVITY OF THE LEIBO FAULT ZONE[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2024, 46(1): 141-161.

图/表 15

参考文献 50

[1]	曹忠权, 汪一鹏, 殷秀华, 等. 1993. 马边地震带发震构造背景的初步研究[J]. 中国地震, 9(4): 87—97.
	CAO Zhong-quan, WANG Yi-peng, YIN Xiu-hua, et al. 1993. A research on the seismogenic tectonics of Mabian seismic zone[J]. Earthquake Research in China, 9(4): 87—97 (in Chinese).
[2]	陈立春, 王虎, 冉勇康, 等. 2010. 玉树 M_S7.1 地震地表破裂与历史大地震[J]. 科学通报, 55(13): 1200—1205.
	CHEN Li-chun, WANG Hu, RAN Yong-kang, et al. 2010. The M_S7.1 Yushu earthquake surface ruptures and historical earthquakes[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 55(13): 1200—1205 (in Chinese).
[3]	邓起东, 于贵华, 叶文华. 1992. 地震地表破裂参数与震级关系的研究 G//国家地震局地质研究所编. 活动断裂研究(2). 北京: 地震出版社: 247—264.
	DENG Qi-dong, YU Gui-hua, YE Wen-hua. 1992. Relationship between earthquake magnitude and parameters of surface ruptures associated with historical earthquakes [G]//Institute of Geology, National Seismological Bureau(ed). Research of Active Fault (2). Seismological Press, Beijing: 247—264 (in Chinese).
[4]	国家地震局成都地震大队地震地质队一分队. 1972. 雷波—马边地区地震地质调查初步总结[R]. 北京: 国家地震局地质研究所.
	Chengdu Earthquake Brigade of the National Seismological Bureau, Earthquake and Geology Team one. 1972. Preliminary summary of the seismical and geological survey in the Leibo-Mabian area[R]. Institute of Geology, National Seismological Bureau, Beijing (in Chinese).
[5]	国家地震局地质研究所. 1992. 西藏中部活动断层[M]. 北京: 地震出版社.
	Institute of Geology, National Seismological Bureau. 1992. Active Faults in Central Tibet[M]. Seismological Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[6]	国家地震局地质研究所,四川省地震局. 1990. 金沙江溪落渡水电站工程地震综合研究报告[R]. 北京: 国家地震局地质研究所.
	Institute of Geology, National Seismological Bureau,Sichuan Provincial Seismological Bureau. 1990. Comprehensive seismic research report on the Jinsha River Xiluodu hydropower station project[R]. Institute of Geology, National Seismological Bureau, Beijing (in Chinese).
[7]	国家地震局震害防御司. 1995. 中国历史强震目录(公元前23世纪—公元1911年)[Z]. 北京: 地震出版社.
	Department of Earthquake Disaster Prevention, National Seismological Bureau. 1995. Catalogue of historical strong earthquakes in China(23rd Century BC to 1911)[Z]. Seismological Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[8]	韩德润. 1993. 马边-永善地震带构造形式及地震特征[J]. 地震地质, 15(3): 253—260.
	HAN De-run. 1993. The tectonic pattern and seismic characteristics of Mabian-Yongshan seismic zone[J]. Seismology and Geology, 15(3): 253—260 (in Chinese).
[9]	韩竹军, 何玉林, 安艳芬, 等. 2009. 新生地震构造带——马边地震构造带最新构造变形样式的初步研究[J]. 地质学报, 83(2): 218—229.
	HAN Zhu-jun, HE Yu-lin, AN Yan-fen, et al. 2009. A new seismotectonic belt: Features of the latest structural deformation style in the Mabian seismotectonic zone[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica, 83(2): 218—229 (in Chinese).
[10]	李传友, 孙凯, 马骏, 等. 2022. 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, 44(6): 1648—1666. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2022.06.017.
	LI Chuan-you, SUN Kai, MA Jun, et al. 2022. The 2022 M6.8 Luding earthquake: A complicated event by faulting of the Moxi segment of the Xianshuihe fault zone[J]. Seismology and Geology, 44(6): 1648—1666 (in Chinese). DOI
[11]	李玶. 1979. 四川马边地震: 一个震群型发震构造的实例 [G]//国家地震局西南烈度队编. 川滇强震区地震地质调查汇编. 北京: 地震出版社: 132—143.
	LI Ping. 1979. Mabian earthquake in Sichuan Province: An example of seismogenic structure generating earthquake swarm [G]//Southwest Intensity Team, National Seismological Bureau(ed). Compilation of seismological and geological survey in Sichuan-Yunnan strong earthquake area. Seismological Press, Beijing: 132—143 (in Chinese).
[12]	李天袑. 1996. 鲜水河断裂带地震地表破裂的主要特征[C]. 中国地震学会. 中国地震学会第6次学术大会论文摘要集. 北京: 地震出版社: 64.
	LI Tian-shao. 1996. The main characteristics of seismic surface rupture in the Xianshuihe fault zone[C]. Seismological Society of China. Abstracts of the Sixth Scientific Conference of the Seismological Society of China. Seismological Press, Beijing: 64 (in Chinese).
[13]	李西, 徐锡伟, 张建国, 等. 2018. 鲁甸 M_S6.5 地震发震断层地表破裂特征、相关古地震的发现和年代测定[J]. 地学前缘, 25(1): 227—239. DOI
	LI Xi, XU Xi-wei, ZHANG Jian-guo, et al. 2018. Surface rupture characteristics of the seismogenic structure of the Ludian M_S6.5 earthquake and identification and dating of related paleoearthquakes[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 25(1): 227—239 (in Chinese). DOI
[14]	梁明剑, 杨耀, 杜方, 等. 2020. 青海达日断裂中段晚第四纪活动性与1947年M7¾地震地表破裂带再研究[J]. 地震地质, 42(3): 703—714. DOI
	LIANG Ming-jian, YANG Yao, DU Fang, et al. 2020. Late Quaternary activity of the central segment of the Dari fault and restudy of the surface rupture zone of the 1947 M7¾ Dari earthquake, Qinghai Province[J]. Seismology and Geology, 42(3): 703—714 (in Chinese). DOI
[15]	刘旭东, 张世民, 苏刚, 等. 2004. 荥经-马边-盐津断裂带中段的晚第四纪活动特征 G//中国地震局地壳应力研究所编. 地壳构造与地壳应力文集(16). 北京: 地震出版社: 30—37.
	LIU Xu-dong, ZHANG Shi-min, SU Gang, et al. 2004. Late Quaternary activity features of the central part of the Yingjing-Mabian-Yanjin fault zone, Sichuan Province [G]//Institute of Crustal Dynamics, China Earthquake Administration(ed). Bulletin of The Institute of Crustal Dynamics(16). Seismological Press, Beijing: 30—37.
[16]	彭云金, 吕加蓉. 2004. 荥经-马边-盐津断裂带新活动特征分析[J]. 四川地震, (3): 34—36.
	PENG Yun-jin, LÜ Jia-rong. 2004. Consideration about the neo-active feature of Yingjing-Mabian-Yanjin fault zone[J]. Earthquake Research in Sichuan, (3): 34—36 (in Chinese).
[17]	青海省地震局, 中国地震局地壳应力研究所. 1999. 东昆仑活动断裂带[M]. 北京: 地震出版社.
	Qinghai Provincial Seismological Bureau,Institute of Crustal Dynamics, China Earthquake Administration. 1999. Eastern Kunlun Active Fault Zone[M]. Seismological Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[18]	冉洪流. 2011. 中国西部走滑型活动断裂的地震破裂参数与震级的经验关系[J]. 地震地质, 33(3): 577—585. DOI
	RAN Hong-liu. 2011. Empirical relations between earthquake magnitude and parameters of strike-slip seismogenic active faults associated with historical earthquakes in western China[J]. Seismology and Geology, 33(3): 577—585 (in Chinese). DOI
[19]	唐荣昌, 韩渭宾. 1993. 四川活动断裂与地震[M]. 北京: 地震出版社.
	TANG Rong-chang, HAN Wei-bin. 1993. Active Faults and Earthquakes in Sichuan Province[M]. Seismological Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[20]	唐荣昌, 文德华, 邓天岗, 等. 1976. 1973年炉霍7.9级地震的地裂缝特征及地震成因的初步探讨[J]. 地球物理学报, 19(1): 18—27, 71—74.
	TANG Rong-chang, WEN De-hua, DENG Tian-gang, et al. 1976. A preliminary study on the characteristics of the ground fractures during the Luhuo M=7.9 earthquake, 1973 and the origin of the earthquake[J]. Acta Geophysica Sinica, 19(1): 18—27, 71—74 (in Chinese).
[21]	王阎昭, 王恩宁, 沈正康, 等. 2008. 基于GPS资料约束反演川滇地区主要断裂现今活动速率[J]. 中国科学(D辑), 38(5): 582—597.
	WANG Yan-zhao, WANG En-ning, SHEN Zheng-kang, et al. 2008. GPS-constrained inversion of present-day slip rate along major faults of the Sichuan-Yunnan region, China[J]. Science in China(Ser D), 38(5): 582—597 (in Chinese).
[22]	吴章明, 邓起东. 1989. 西藏崩错8级地震地表破裂的变形特征及其破裂机制[J]. 地震地质, 11(1): 15—25, 137—138.
	WU Zhang-ming, DENG Qi-dong. 1989. Deformation features and fracture mechanism of surface rupture of 1951 BengCo, Tibet M_S=8 earthquake[J]. Seismology and Geology, 11(1): 15—25, 137—138 (in Chinese).
[23]	徐锡伟, 韩竹军, 杨晓平, 等. 2016. 中国及邻近地区地震构造图(1︰4 000 000)[CM]. 北京: 地震出版社.
	XU Xi-wei, HAN Zhu-jun, YANG Xiao-ping, et al. 2016. The seismotectonic map of China and its vicinity(1︰4 000 000)[CM]. Seismological Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[24]	徐锡伟, 谭锡斌, 吴国栋, 等. 2011. 2008年于田 M_S7.3 地震地表破裂带特征及其构造属性讨论[J]. 地震地质, 33(2): 462—471. DOI
	XU Xi-wei, TAN Xi-bin, WU Guo-dong, et al. 2011. Surface rupture features of the 2008 Yutian M_S7.3 earthquake and its tectonic nature[J]. Seismology and Geology, 33(2): 462—471 (in Chinese). DOI
[25]	徐锡伟, 闻学泽, 郑荣章, 等. 2003. 川滇地区活动地块最新构造变动样式及其动力来源[J]. 中国科学(D辑), 33(S1): 151—162.
	XU Xi-wei, WEN Xue-ze, ZHENG Rong-zhang, et al. 2003. Pattern of latest tectonic motion and its dynamics of active blocks in Sichuan-Yunnan region, China[J]. Science in China(Ser D), 33(S1): 151—162 (in Chinese).
[26]	俞维贤, 柴天俊, 侯学英. 1991. 澜沧7.6级地震形变带[J]. 地震地质, 13(4): 343—352, 389.
	YU Wei-xian, CHAI Tian-jun, HOU Xue-ying. 1991. Deformation zone of M=7.6 Lanchang earthquake[J]. Seismology and Geology, 13(4): 343—352, 389 (in Chinese).
[27]	张俊昌. 1979. 曲江断裂的新活动与通海地震[J]. 地震研究, 2(1): 38—43.
	ZHANG Jun-chang. 1979. The latest activity of the Qujiang Fault and Tonghai earthquake[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 2(1): 38—43 (in Chinese).
[28]	张培震. 2008. 青藏高原东缘川西地区的现今构造变形、应变分配与深部动力过程[J]. 中国科学(D辑), 38(9): 1041—1056.
	ZHANG Pei-zhen. 2008. Present tectonic deformation, strain distribution and deep dynamic process in the western Sichuan of the Tibetan plateau[J]. Science in China(Ser D), 38(9): 1041—1056 (in Chinese).
[29]	张芹贵, 彭向辉, 祝建华. 2019. 马边-雷波-峨边-金阳大断裂构造特征及活动性[J]. 四川地质学报, 39(1): 30—33.
	ZHANG Qin-gui, PENG Xiang-hui, ZHU Jian-hua. 2019. Characteristics and activity of the Mabian-Leibo-Ebian-Jinyang major fault[J]. Acta Geologica Sichuan, 39(1): 30—33 (in Chinese).
[30]	张世民, 聂高众, 刘旭东, 等. 2005. 荥经-马边-盐津逆冲构造带断裂运动组合及地震分段特征[J]. 地震地质, 27(2): 221—233.
	ZHANG Shi-min, NIE Gao-zhong, LIU Xu-dong, et al. 2005. Kinematical and structural patterns of Yingjing-Mabian-Yanjin thrust fault zone, southeast of Tibetan plateau and its segmentation from earthquakes[J]. Seismology and Geology, 27(2): 221—233 (in Chinese).
[31]	中国地震局震害防御司. 1999. 中国近代地震目录: 公元1912—1990年,M_S≥4.7[Z]. 北京: 中国科学技术出版社.
	Department of Earthquake Disaster Prevention, China Earthquake Administration. 1999. Catalogue of Recent Earthquakes in China: From 1912 to 1990AD, M_S≥4.7[Z]. Science and Technology Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
[32]	中国地震台网中心. 2023. 历史查询[DB/OL][2023-05-10]. http://www.ceic.ac.cn/history.
	China Earthquake Networks Center. 2023. History querying[DB/OL][2023-05-10]. in Chinese).
[33]	中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 2018. 活动断层探测(GB/T 36072-2018)[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社.
	General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. 2018. Surveying and prospecting of active fault(GB/T 36072-2018)[S]. Standards Press of China, Beijing (in Chinese).
[34]	周瑞琦, 俞维贤, 谷一山, 等. 1990. 云南耿马7.2级地震地表破裂带研究[J]. 地震地质, 12(4): 291—302, 387—388.
	ZHOU Rui-qi, YU Wei-xian, GU Yi-shan, et al. 1990. A study on rupture zone of the 1988 Gengma earthquake with magnitude 7.2 in Yunnan Province[J]. Seismology and Geology, 12(4): 291—302, 387—388 (in Chinese).
[35]	Deng Q D, Chen S F, Song F M, et al. 1986. Variations in the geometry and amount of slip on the Haiyuan(Nanxihaushan)fault zone, China and the surface rupture of the 1920 Haiyuan earthquake [G]//Das S, Boatwright J, Scholz C H(ed). Earthquake Source Mechanics 37. American Geophysical Union, Washington D C: 169—182. doi: 10.1029/GM037p0169.
[36]	Deng Q D, Zhang P Z. 1984. Research on the geometry of shear fracture zones[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 89(B7): 5699—5710. doi: 10.1029/JB089iB07p05699.
[37]	Gan W J, Zhang P Z, Shen Z K, et al. 2007. Present-day crustal motion within the Tibetan plateau inferred from GPS measurements[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112(B8): B08416. doi: 10.1029/2005jb004120.
[38]	Gan W J, Molnar P, Zhang P Z, et al. 2022. Initiation of clockwise rotation and eastward transport of southeastern Tibet inferred from deflected fault traces and GPS observations[J]. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 134(5-6): 1129—1142. doi: 10.1130/B36069.1.
[39]	Li Z J, Wang Y, Gan W J, et al. 2020. Diffuse deformation in the SE Tibetan plateau: New insights from geodetic observations[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 125(10): e2020JB019383. doi: 10.1029/2020JB019383.
[40]	Niu P F, Han Z J, Li K C, et al. 2023. The 2022 M_W6.7 Menyuan earthquake on the northeastern margin of the Tibetan plateau, China: Complex surface ruptures and large slip[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 113(3): 976—996. doi: 10.1785/0120220163.
[41]	Peltzer G, Crampé F, King G. 1999. Evidence of nonlinear elasticity of the crust from the M_W7.6 Manyi(Tibet)earthquake[J]. Science, 286(5438): 272—276. doi: 10.1126/science.286.543 8.272. PMID
[42]	Ramsey C B. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: The OxCal program[J]. Radiocarbon, 37(2): 425—430. doi: 10.1017/S0033822200030903.
[43]	Shen Z K, Lü J N, Wang M, et al. 2005. Contemporary crustal deformation around the southeast borderland of the Tibetan plateau[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110(B11): B11409. doi: 10.1029/2004JB003421.
[44]	Shi X H, Sieh K, Weldon R, et al. 2018. Slip rate and rare large prehistoric earthquakes of the Red River Fault, southwestern China[J]. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 19(7): 2014—2031. doi: 10.1029/2017GC007420.
[45]	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): e2019JB018774. doi: 10.1029/2019JB018774.
[46]	Wang Q, Zhang P Z, Freymueller J T, et al. 2001. Present-day crustal deformation in China constrained by global positioning system measurements[J]. Science, 294(5542): 574—577. doi: 10.1126/science.1063647. PMID
[47]	Xu X W, Wen X Z, Yu G H, et al. 2005. Average slip rate, earthquake rupturing segmentation and recurrence behavior on the Litang fault zone, western Sichuan Province, China[J]. Science in China(Ser D), 48(8): 1183—1196. doi: 10.1360/04yd0072.
[48]	Xu X W, Yu G H, Klinger Y, et al. 2006. Reevaluation of surface rupture parameters and faulting segmentation of the 2001 Kunlunshan earthquake(M_W7.8), northern Tibetan plateau, China[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111(B5): B05316. doi: 10.1029/2004JB003488.
[49]	Yuan Z D, Li T, Su P, et al. 2022. Large surface-rupture gaps and low surface fault slip of the 2021 M_W7.4 Maduo earthquake along a low-activity strike-slip fault, Tibetan plateau[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(6): e2021GL096874. doi: 10.1029/2021GL096874.
[50]	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: 10.1130/G20554.1.

地层编号	岩性描述
U1	黄褐色玄武岩,岩石破碎和风化严重。局部顶部以薄层黑色碎裂基岩为顶界,呈弯曲条带状。
U2	灰紫、灰黄色砂砾石层,可分为3个亚层。其中U2a呈灰紫、灰褐色,砾石分选性差,呈次棱角状,粒径2~7cm不等,局部夹较大的基岩石块;砾石原岩为玄武岩或砂岩,含量为60%~70%; U2b为薄层灰黄色砂砾石层,砾石分选性较U2a更好,呈次圆状,粒径4~8cm,含量为55%~65%,多以粗砂充填,含少量黏土,分布于南西壁局部; U2c呈灰黄色、土黄色,砾石分选性差,呈次棱角状,充填大量黏土,颜色比其他2层浅,砾石含量也更低。
U3	蓝绿色砂砾石层,砾石分选性中等,磨圆度低,呈棱角至次棱角状,粒径1~6cm,砾石含量50%~60%,局部被蓝色泥沙浸染。
U4	蓝色含泥砂砾石层,砾石分选性中等偏差,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状,粒径1~10cm,砾石含量为65%~75%。
U5	黄褐色薄层不连续砾石层,砾石分选性差,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状或次棱角状,其间充填砂土。
U6	橙色含泥砂砾石层,砾石分选性差,磨圆度中等偏低,总体呈次棱角状,粒径1~15cm不等,局部可见较大的砾石,砾石含量40%~50%,充填物以砂土为主。该层呈现中间厚、两侧薄的特征。
U7	土黄色含砾砂土层,砾石分选性中等偏差,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状,粒径为1~6cm,砾石含量为10%~15%,顶部植物根系较发育。
U8	深褐色与褐色砂土互层,其中U8a为深褐色砂土层, U8b为褐色砂土层。该套地层中的砾石分选性中等,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状,砾石粒径为1~3cm,含量为10%~20%,植物根系发育,富含炭屑。
U9	表土层,含有较多小砾石,砾石磨圆度中等偏差,分选性一般,植物根系发育。

地层编号	岩性描述
U1	黄褐色玄武岩,岩石破碎和风化严重。局部顶部以薄层黑色碎裂基岩为顶界,呈弯曲条带状。
U2	灰紫、灰黄色砂砾石层,可分为3个亚层。其中U2a呈灰紫、灰褐色,砾石分选性差,呈次棱角状,粒径2~7cm不等,局部夹较大的基岩石块;砾石原岩为玄武岩或砂岩,含量为60%~70%; U2b为薄层灰黄色砂砾石层,砾石分选性较U2a更好,呈次圆状,粒径4~8cm,含量为55%~65%,多以粗砂充填,含少量黏土,分布于南西壁局部; U2c呈灰黄色、土黄色,砾石分选性差,呈次棱角状,充填大量黏土,颜色比其他2层浅,砾石含量也更低。
U3	蓝绿色砂砾石层,砾石分选性中等,磨圆度低,呈棱角至次棱角状,粒径1~6cm,砾石含量50%~60%,局部被蓝色泥沙浸染。
U4	蓝色含泥砂砾石层,砾石分选性中等偏差,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状,粒径1~10cm,砾石含量为65%~75%。
U5	黄褐色薄层不连续砾石层,砾石分选性差,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状或次棱角状,其间充填砂土。
U6	橙色含泥砂砾石层,砾石分选性差,磨圆度中等偏低,总体呈次棱角状,粒径1~15cm不等,局部可见较大的砾石,砾石含量40%~50%,充填物以砂土为主。该层呈现中间厚、两侧薄的特征。
U7	土黄色含砾砂土层,砾石分选性中等偏差,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状,粒径为1~6cm,砾石含量为10%~15%,顶部植物根系较发育。
U8	深褐色与褐色砂土互层,其中U8a为深褐色砂土层, U8b为褐色砂土层。该套地层中的砾石分选性中等,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状,砾石粒径为1~3cm,含量为10%~20%,植物根系发育,富含炭屑。
U9	表土层,含有较多小砾石,砾石磨圆度中等偏差,分选性一般,植物根系发育。

地层编号	岩性描述
U1	黄褐色砂岩,岩石破碎严重,局部发育剪切面。
U2	褐色断层角砾层,黄绿色砂土充填。角砾原岩为砂岩,无分选性,磨圆度极差。
U3	杂色断层角砾层,杂色砂土充填。角砾破碎程度更高,无分选性,磨圆度极差,呈条带状产出,顶部出露薄层紫红色黏土。
U4	紫红色角砾层,砂土充填。角砾原岩为紫红色或灰绿色砂岩、砾石,磨圆度差,呈棱角状,粒径为4~8cm,个别达15cm。
U5	灰褐色、灰黄色角砾层,土黄色砂土充填。砾石分选性差,呈棱角至次棱角状,粒径2~15cm。
U6	紫红色角砾层,砂土充填。角砾原岩为灰绿色砂岩,砾石磨圆度差,呈棱角状,粒径10~20cm。
U7	紫红色角砾层,砂土充填,砂土含量高于U5,可分为2个亚层: U7a呈弯曲的条带,砾石显示定向排列; U7b为混杂堆积的角砾层。
U8	土褐色含砂砾石层,砾石分选性差,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状或次棱角状,质地松软,可用小刀刮出新鲜面,粒径为5~15cm。
U9	土黄色砂砾石层,砂土充填。砾石呈紫红色或灰绿色,磨圆度好,呈次圆状,粒径2~8cm。
U10	亮黄色黏土层,夹少量黄色砾石碎屑或岩块。
U11	土灰色黏土层,夹少量砾石,砾石大小不一,分布无规律,粒径为5~20cm。
U12	土褐色含砾黏土层,砾石分选性差,呈次圆状或圆状,砾石较U11偏多。
U13	表土层,植物根系发育。
W1	灰褐色充填楔,充填物以砂土为主,局部夹少量砾石。

地层编号	岩性描述
U1	黄褐色砂岩,岩石破碎严重,局部发育剪切面。
U2	褐色断层角砾层,黄绿色砂土充填。角砾原岩为砂岩,无分选性,磨圆度极差。
U3	杂色断层角砾层,杂色砂土充填。角砾破碎程度更高,无分选性,磨圆度极差,呈条带状产出,顶部出露薄层紫红色黏土。
U4	紫红色角砾层,砂土充填。角砾原岩为紫红色或灰绿色砂岩、砾石,磨圆度差,呈棱角状,粒径为4~8cm,个别达15cm。
U5	灰褐色、灰黄色角砾层,土黄色砂土充填。砾石分选性差,呈棱角至次棱角状,粒径2~15cm。
U6	紫红色角砾层,砂土充填。角砾原岩为灰绿色砂岩,砾石磨圆度差,呈棱角状,粒径10~20cm。
U7	紫红色角砾层,砂土充填,砂土含量高于U5,可分为2个亚层: U7a呈弯曲的条带,砾石显示定向排列; U7b为混杂堆积的角砾层。
U8	土褐色含砂砾石层,砾石分选性差,磨圆度中等,呈次圆状或次棱角状,质地松软,可用小刀刮出新鲜面,粒径为5~15cm。
U9	土黄色砂砾石层,砂土充填。砾石呈紫红色或灰绿色,磨圆度好,呈次圆状,粒径2~8cm。
U10	亮黄色黏土层,夹少量黄色砾石碎屑或岩块。
U11	土灰色黏土层,夹少量砾石,砾石大小不一,分布无规律,粒径为5~20cm。
U12	土褐色含砾黏土层,砾石分选性差,呈次圆状或圆状,砾石较U11偏多。
U13	表土层,植物根系发育。
W1	灰褐色充填楔,充填物以砂土为主,局部夹少量砾石。

发震日期	位置	震中		震级 /M_S	地表破裂长度 /km	数据来源
		北纬/(°)	东经/(°)
2022-09-05	四川泸定	29.59	102.08	6.8	15.5	李传友等,2022
2022-01-08	青海门源	37.77	101.26	6.9	31.7	Niu et al., 2023
2021-05-22	青海玛多	34.59	98.34	7.4	148	Yuan et al., 2022
2014-08-03	云南鲁甸	27.10	103.30	6.5	8	李西等,2018
2014-02-12	新疆于田	36.10	82.50	7.3	31	徐锡伟等,2011
2010-04-14	青海玉树	33.10	96.70	7.1	65	陈立春等,2010
2001-11-14	青海昆仑山	36.20	90.90	8.1	426	Xu et al., 2006
1997-11-08	青海玛尼	35.26	87.33	7.9	170	Peltzer et al., 1999
1988-11-06	云南耿马	22.80	99.61	7.2	50	周瑞琦等,1990
1988-11-06	云南澜沧	23.18	99.44	7.6	70	俞维贤等,1991
1981-01-24	四川道孚	30.90	101.30	6.9	44	唐荣昌等,1976
1973-02-06	四川炉霍	31.30	100.70	7.6	90	李天袑,1996
1970-01-05	云南通海	24.06	102.35	7.7	60	张俊昌,1979
1951-11-18	西藏崩错	31.10	91.40	8	100	吴章明等,1989
1948-05-25	四川理塘	29.30	100.30	7.3	40	Xu et al., 2005
1947-03-17	青海达日	33.3	99.5	7¾	70	梁明剑等,2020
1937-01-07	青海花石峡	35.50	97.60	7½	180	青海省地震局等,1999
1932-12-25	玉门昌马	39.7	97.0	7.6	120	国家地震局地质研究所,1992
1931-08-11	新疆富蕴	47.00	89.90	8	80	Deng et al., 1984
1923-03-24	四川道孚	31.05	100.13	7.3	85	李天袑,1996
1920-12-16	宁夏海原	36.50	105.70	8.7	220	Deng et al., 1986

雷波断裂带全新世活动证据

EVIDENCE FOR THE HOLOCENE ACTIVITY OF THE LEIBO FAULT ZONE

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 15

参考文献 50

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

断裂名称	断裂长度 /km	经验公式	适用类型	最大震级 /M_S
北北支断裂	14	M_S=5.92+0.88lg(L)(邓起东等, 1992)	走滑断层	6.9
		M_S=5.303+1.181lg(L)(冉洪流, 2011)	走滑断层	6.6
北支断裂	11	M_S=5.92+0.88lg(L)(邓起东等, 1992)	走滑断层	6.8
		M_S=5.303+1.181lg(L)(冉洪流, 2011)	走滑断层	6.5
中支断裂	42	M_S=5.92+0.88lg(L)(邓起东等, 1992)	走滑断层	7.3
		M_S=5.303+1.181lg(L)(冉洪流, 2011)	走滑断层	7.2
南支断裂	33	M_S=5.92+0.88lg(L)(邓起东等, 1992)	走滑断层	7.3
		M_S=5.303+1.181lg(L)(冉洪流, 2011)	走滑断层	7.1

[1]	姬昊, 刘春茹, 魏传义, 杨会丽, 尹功明, 常祖峰. 断裂带方解石脉ESR定年研究及其对龙蟠-乔后断裂剑川段活动性的指示[J]. 地震地质, 2024, 46(1): 81-100.
[2]	石文芳, 徐伟, 尹金辉, 郑勇刚. 宇宙成因核素测年中石英分离流程的改进[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(6): 1452-1462.
[3]	邹俊杰, 何宏林, 周永胜, 魏占玉, 石峰, 耿爽, 苏鹏, 孙稳. 小型无人机(sUAV)在基岩区古地震研究选点中的应用[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(4): 833-846.
[4]	张浩, 李丽梅, 蒋新, 章东, 许汉刚. 郯庐断裂带安丘-莒县断裂江苏段古地震研究新进展[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(4): 880-895.
[5]	刘庆, 刘韶, 张世民. 大凉山断裂带中段越西断裂晚第四纪古地震[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(2): 321-337.
[6]	李安, 万波, 王晓先, 计昊旻, 索锐. 金州断裂盖州北鞍山段古地震破裂的新证据[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(1): 111-126.
[7]	郑海刚, 姚大全, 赵朋, 杨源源, 黄金水. 郯庐断裂带赤山段全新世新活动的特征[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(1): 127-138.
[8]	杨源源, 李鹏飞, 路硕, 疏鹏, 潘浩波, 方良好, 郑海刚, 赵朋, 郑颖平, 姚大全. 郯庐断裂带中段F₅断裂淮河-女山湖段的古地震与垂直滑动速率[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(6): 1365-1383.
[9]	石文芳, 徐伟, 尹金辉, 郑勇刚. 秦岭北缘古地震基岩崩塌和滑坡施密特锤暴露年龄[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(6): 1384-1402.
[10]	刘兴旺, 袁道阳, 姚赟胜, 邹小波. 三危山断裂敦煌段古地震活动特征[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(6): 1398-1411.
[11]	常祖峰, 常昊, 李鉴林, 毛泽斌, 臧阳. 维西-乔后断裂全新世活动与古地震[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(4): 881-898.
[12]	冯嘉辉, 陈立春, 王虎, 刘姣, 韩明明, 李彦宝, 高帅坡, 卢丽莉. 大凉山断裂带北段石棉断裂的古地震[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(1): 53-71.
[13]	马骏, 周本刚, 王明明, 安力科. 鲜水河断裂带折多塘断裂西北段全新世活动的地质地貌依据[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(5): 1021-1038.
[14]	张玲, 杨晓平, 李胜强, 黄伟亮, 杨海波. 秋里塔格褶皱带东段探槽的古地震事件[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(5): 1039-1057.
[15]	黄帅堂, 胡伟华, 杨攀新, 李帅, 伊力亚尔. 东天山唐巴勒-塔斯墩断裂带晚第四纪活动特征[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(5): 1058-1071.