基岩断层面黏滑和蠕滑时岩石表层光释光信号模拟

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2024.02.007

地震地质 ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (2): 357-370.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2024.02.007

基岩断层面黏滑和蠕滑时岩石表层光释光信号模拟

罗明¹^,²^,³^,⁴⁾(), 陈杰³^,⁴⁾^,^*(), 覃金堂³^,⁴⁾, 尹金辉³^,⁴⁾, 杨会丽³^,⁴⁾, 刘进峰³^,⁴⁾, 龚志军²⁾

¹⁾ 东华理工大学, 江西省数字国土重点实验室, 南昌 330013
²⁾ 东华理工大学, 地球科学学院, 南昌 330013
³⁾ 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
⁴⁾ 新疆帕米尔陆内俯冲国家野外科学观测研究站, 北京 100029

收稿日期:2023-03-07 修回日期:2023-06-25 出版日期:2024-04-20 发布日期:2024-05-29
通讯作者: *陈杰, 男, 1966年生, 研究员, 主要研究方向为新构造与活动构造、第四纪地质及年代学, E-mail: chenjie@ies.ac.cn。
作者简介:
罗明, 男, 1989年生, 2019年于中国地震局地质研究所获构造地质学博士学位, 讲师, 研究方向为活动构造与释光年代学, E-mail: luomingearth@163.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(42202247); 地震动力学国家重点实验室项目(LED2022B07); 国家重点研发计划项目(2022YFC3003700); 东华理工大学江西省数字国土重点实验室开放研究基金(DLLJ202209)

SIMULATION OF THE ROCK SURFACE LUMINESCENCE SIGNALS ON BEDROCK FAULT SCARPS BY STICK-SLIP AND CREEP MOVEMENTS

LUO Ming¹^,²^,³^,⁴⁾(), CHEN Jie³^,⁴⁾^,^*(), QIN Jin-tang³^,⁴⁾, YIN Jin-hui³^,⁴⁾, YANG Hui-li³^,⁴⁾, LIU Jin-feng³^,⁴⁾, GONG Zhi-jun²⁾

¹⁾ Key Laboratory for Digital Land and Resources of Jiangxi Province, East China University of Technology, Nanchang 330013, China
²⁾ School of Earth Sciences, East China University of Technology, Nanchang 330013, China
³⁾ State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics, Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100029, China
⁴⁾ Xinjiang Pamir Intracontinental Subduction National Observation and Research Station, Beijing 100029, China

Received:2023-03-07 Revised:2023-06-25 Online:2024-04-20 Published:2024-05-29

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

重建断层的黏滑(seismic slp)和蠕滑(creep)历史对于更好地了解断层活动和地震危险性评估至关重要。近年来, 利用大地测量技术研究活动断层的蠕滑和黏滑过程成为一个研究热点。然而, 在地质历史时期(如百年尺度以上), 如何判断活动断层的滑动方式(黏滑或蠕滑), 并获取其滑动速率仍然是一项挑战。文中基于近十年来发展的岩石表层光释光测年方法, 结合内蒙古狼山断裂花岗岩样品的光释光晒退参数进行理论模拟, 得到了基岩正断层发生黏滑、蠕滑和崩积楔侵蚀等情形的光释光晒退模型。模拟结果表明, 该方法能够有效区分断层的黏滑和蠕滑, 获得相应的活动期次和位移量, 并且有潜力记录崩积楔侵蚀。文中还分析了该方法区分断层活动方式、期次的时间分辨率和获得位移量的空间分辨率。

关键词: 基岩断层面, 黏滑, 蠕滑, 岩石表层, 光释光测年

Abstract:

The reconstruct of the stick-slip and creep histories is essential for understanding fault activities and seismic hazard assessment. Distinguishing stick-slip and creep using geodetic technology has become a hot research area in recent years, but distinguishing and estimating seismic slip and creep on geological timescales(e.g., over hundreds of years)is challenging due to the lack of historical, geodetic and remote sensing data extending back more than a few hundred years. This study uses a newly developed dating technique(rock surface optically-stimulated-luminescence(OSL)dating)combined with the OSL decay parameters of granite samples from the Langshan fault in Inner Mongolia to simulate optically stimulated OSL-depth curves and depths of half saturation of luminescence signal under various scenarios such as fault seismic slipping, creeping, and erosion of colluvial wedge. The study compares these OSL-depth profiles, especially the depths of the half saturation, under different slipping modes, and summarizes their features.

During fault seismic slip, samples at different heights along the fault scarp display a “step-like” distribution pattern at their depths of half saturation. While during creep, however, they exhibit a “slope-like” pattern. Such differences may lie in that the slope during accelerating creeping is steeper than the slope during constant-speed creeping. Correspondingly, the resolution of residual luminescence-depth profile and depth of half saturation is also higher during accelerating creeping. During intra-earthquake creep events between seismic slip occurrences on the bedrock fault scarp, the distribution of half-saturation depth in the samples includes segments resembling both “steps” and “slopes”, which indicate the seismic slip and creep activities of the fault respectively. If the samples at the base of the colluvial wedge have had a sufficiently long last exposure time, the luminescence-depth profile and half-saturation depth distribution due to the erosion of the colluvial wedge would be approximately the same as in the three-phase seismic slip scenario. This indicates that samples previously buried by the colluvial wedge may be considered within the seismic displacement. Conversely, if the last exposure time of the base samples at the base of the colluvial wedge is short, the bleaching depth of the luminescence signal of these base samples will be noticeably shallower than that of the other samples within the seismic displacement, indicating the observed erosion of the colluvial wedge in this case. Furthermore, the seismic displacement ideally should include the buried location of the colluvial wedge. Therefore, when the luminescence curves and half-saturation depth distributions fail to identify the presence of the colluvial wedge, it is acceptable to include the buried location of the colluvial wedge in the seismic displacement calculation. Conversely, the luminescence-depth curves and half-saturation depth distributions document the erosion caused by the colluvial wedge. The simulation results demonstrate that this method can effectively distinguish between fault slipping and creeping, obtain corresponding displacements, and potentially record the erosion of colluvial wedge.

This study also analyzes the temporal resolution of the method for distinguishing fault activity times and the spatial resolution for quantifying displacements. The specific situation is as follows. When exposure age of the bedrock fault scarp is within a thousand years, the rock surface OSL dating method can easily distinguish types of active slips and seismic displacements for the earthquakes with a recurrence interval of hundreds of years. When exposure age of the bedrock fault scarp is in the range of 10⁰-10¹ka, the method can easily distinguish types of active slips and seismic displacements for the earthquakes with a recurrence interval exceeding a thousand years. When exposure age of the bedrock fault scarp is over ten-thousand years, the resolution of this method may be significantly reduced. The spatial resolution of seismic displacements using this method depends on interval between sampling and testing samples, typically in 10~30cm.

Key words: Bedrock normal fault scarp, stick-slip, creep, rock surface, optical stimulated luminescence dating

罗明, 陈杰, 覃金堂, 尹金辉, 杨会丽, 刘进峰, 龚志军. 基岩断层面黏滑和蠕滑时岩石表层光释光信号模拟[J]. 地震地质, 2024, 46(2): 357-370.

LUO Ming, CHEN Jie, QIN Jin-tang, YIN Jin-hui, YANG Hui-li, LIU Jin-feng, GONG Zhi-jun. SIMULATION OF THE ROCK SURFACE LUMINESCENCE SIGNALS ON BEDROCK FAULT SCARPS BY STICK-SLIP AND CREEP MOVEMENTS[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2024, 46(2): 357-370.

图/表 3

图1 基岩断层面发生黏滑或蠕滑时的光释光信号晒退模型 a 基岩正断层陡坎剖面, 在基岩断层暴露面采集样品A—J, 在未暴露面采集样品K; b—g 断层面发生黏滑或蠕滑(即3次黏滑事件(b、 c), 匀速蠕滑(d、 e), 变速蠕滑(f、 g), 震间蠕滑(h、 i))时, 模拟获取的光释光信号与深度关系曲线及半饱和深度(释光信号衰退50%的深度)分布图。模拟公式引用自文献(Sohbati et al., 2018), 参数设定来自内蒙古狼山基岩正断层样品(Luo et al., 2022), 图a—c引自文献(Luo et al., 2022)

Fig. 1 The optically stimulated luminescence signal bleaching model for stick-slip or creep events on a bedrock fault scarp.

图2 地震崩积楔发生不同程度侵蚀时的光释光信号晒退模型 a 基岩正断层陡坎剖面, 在基岩断层暴露面采集样品A—J, 在未暴露面采集样品K, 其中样品H、 I、 J曾经被崩积楔埋藏; b—g 崩积楔发生不同侵蚀情况(崩积楔被很快侵蚀剥露至样品J(b, c)、崩积楔被较慢侵蚀剥露至样品J(d, e)、崩积楔被极缓慢侵蚀剥露至样品J(f, g))时, 模拟光释光信号与深度关系曲线和半饱和深度分布图。模拟公式引用自文献(Freiesleben et al., 2015)

Fig. 2 The optically stimulated luminescence signal bleaching model for various erosion degrees in colluvial wedge.

图3 基岩在暴露一定时间后光释光信号的半饱和深度

Fig. 3 Depth of half saturation of luminescence signal on bedrock versus exposure age.

参考文献 29

[1]	崔富荣, 刘进峰. 2018. 砂岩和花岗岩岩石表层光释光信号晒退速率对比及测年意义[J]. 地球环境学报, 9(3): 223—229.
	CUI Fu-rong, LIU Jin-feng. 2018. Bleaching rate of IRSL signal of granite, sandstone and the significance for rock surface dating[J]. Journal of Earth Environment, 9(3): 223—229(in Chinese).
[2]	何宏林, 魏占玉, 毕丽思, 等. 2015. 利用基岩断层面形貌定量特征识别古地震: 以霍山山前断裂为例[J]. 地震地质, 37(2): 400—412. DOI
	HE Hong-lin, WEI Zhan-yu, BI Li-si, et al. 2015. Identify paleo-earthquakes using quantitative morphology of bedrock fault surface: A case study on the Huoshan Piedmont Fault[J]. Seismology and Geology, 37(2): 400—412(in Chinese). DOI
[3]	罗明. 2019. 冰川漂砾与基岩断层面光释光测年探索[D]. 北京: 中国地震局地质研究所.
	LUO Ming. 2019. OSL surface exposure dating of glacial boulders and bedrock fault scarp[D]. Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing (in Chinese).
[4]	周永胜. 2019. 基岩区断层黏滑与蠕滑的地质标志和岩石力学实验证据[J]. 地震地质, 41(5): 1266—1272. DOI
	ZHOU Yong-sheng. 2019. The Geological and rock mechanical distinction evidence between stick-slip and creep in host rock segments of fault[J]. Seismology and Geology, 41(5): 1266—1272(in Chinese). DOI
[5]	Avouac J P. 2015. From geodetic imaging of seismic and aseismic fault slip to dynamic modeling of the seismic cycle[J]. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 43: 233—271. doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105302.
[6]	Brill D, Ageby L, Obert C, et al. 2022. Investigating the resetting of IRSL signals in beach cobbles and their potential for rock surface dating of marine terraces in Northern Chile[J]. Marine Geology, 443:106692. doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2021.106692.
[7]	Brown N D, Moon S. 2019. Revisiting erosion rate estimates from luminescence profiles in exposed bedrock surfaces using stochastic erosion simulations[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 528:115842. doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2019.115842.
[8]	Cui F, Qin J, Liu J, et al. 2022. Isolating quartz-dominated OSL signal of rock slice by using pulsed stimulation: Implications for dating burial age of cobbles[J]. Quaternary Geochronology, 72:101367. doi: 10.1016/j.quageo.2022.101367.
[9]	Feathers J K, Frouin M, Bench T G. 2022. Luminescence dating of Enigmatic rock structures in New England, USA[J]. Quaternary Geochronology, 73:101402. doi: 10.1016/j.quageo.2022.101402.
[10]	Freiesleben T, Sohbati R, Murray A, et al. 2015. Mathematical model quantifies multiple daylight exposure and burial events for rock surfaces using luminescence dating[J]. Radiation Measurements, 81: 16—22. doi: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2015.02.004.
[11]	Gliganic L A, Meyer M C, May J H, et al. 2021. Direct dating of lithic surface artifacts using luminescence[J]. Science Advances, 7(23): eabb3424. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abb3424.
[12]	Harris R A. 2017. Large earthquakes and creeping faults[J]. Reviews of Geophysics, 55(1): 169—198. doi: 10.1002/2016RG000539.
[13]	Jenkins G T H, Duller G A T, Roberts H M, et al. 2018. A new approach for luminescence dating glaciofluvial deposits: High precision optical dating of cobbles[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 192: 263—273. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.05.036.
[14]	Lehmann B, Herman F, Valla P G, et al. 2020. Postglacial erosion of bedrock surfaces and deglaciation timing: New insights from the Mont Blanc massif(western Alps)[J]. Geology, 48(2): 139—144. doi: 10.1130/G46585.1.
[15]	Li Y, Nocquet J M, Shan X, et al. 2021. Geodetic observations of shallow creep on the Laohushan-Haiyuan Fault, northeastern Tibet[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126(6): e2020JB021576. doi: 10.1029/2020JB021576.
[16]	Liu J, Cui F, Murray A S, et al. 2019. Resetting of the luminescence signal in modern riverbed cobbles along the course of the Shiyang River, China[J]. Quaternary Geochronology, 49: 184—190. doi: 10.1016/j.quageo.2018.04.004.
[17]	Liu Q, Chen J, Qin J, et al. 2022. MET-post-IR IRSL luminescence dating of cobbles buried in fluvial terraces in the Northern Chinese Tian Shan[J]. Quaternary Geochronology, 72: 101351. doi: 10.1016/j.quageo.2022.101351.
[18]	Luo M, Chen J, Liu J, et al. 2018. A test of rock surface luminescence dating using glaciofluvial boulders from the Chinese Pamir[J]. Radiation Measurements, 120: 290—297. doi: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.07.017.
[19]	Luo M, Chen J, Owen L A, et al. 2022. A novel approach for reconstructing slip histories for bedrock fault scarps using rock surface luminescence dating[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(16): e2022GL099526. doi: 10.1029/2022GL099526.
[20]	Ou X, Roberts H M, Duller G A T, et al. 2018. Attenuation of light in different rock types and implications for rock surface luminescence dating[J]. Radiation Measurements, 120: 305—311. doi: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.06.027.
[21]	Ozener H, Dogru A, Turgut B. 2013. Quantifying aseismic creep on the Ismetpasa segment of the North Anatolian fault zone(Turkey)by 6 years of GPS observations[J]. Journal of Geodynamics, 67: 72—77. doi: 10.1016/j.jog.2012.08.002.
[22]	Pederson J L, Chapot M S, Simms S R, et al. 2014. Age of Barrier Canyon-style rock art constrained by cross-cutting relations and luminescence dating techniques[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(36): 12986—12991. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1405402111. PMID
[23]	Schwartz S Y, Rokosky J M. 2007. Slow slip events and seismic tremor at circum-Pacific subduction zones[J]. Reviews of Geophysics, 45(3): RG3004. doi: 10.1029/2006RG000208.
[24]	Smith L N, Sohbati R, Jain M. 2023. Rock surface luminescence dating of gravel determines the age of a glacial outburst megaflood, Glacial Lake Missoula, Montana, USA[J]. Geology, 51(4): 323—328. doi: 10.1130/G50721.1.
[25]	Sohbati R, Jain M, Murray A. 2012a. Surface exposure dating of non-terrestrial bodies using optically stimulated luminescence: A new method[J]. Icarus, 221(1): 160—166. doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07.017.
[26]	Sohbati R, Liu J, Jain M, et al. 2018. Centennial-to millennial-scale hard rock erosion rates deduced from luminescence-depth profiles[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 493: 218—230. doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2018.04.017.
[27]	Sohbati R, Murray A S, Chapot M S, et al. 2012b. Optically stimulated luminescence(OSL)as a chronometer for surface exposure dating[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 117(B9): B09202. doi: 10.1029/2012JB009383.
[28]	Wintle A G, Murray A S. 2006. A review of quartz optically stimulated luminescence characteristics and their relevance in single-aliquot regeneration dating protocols[J]. Radiation Measurements, 41(4): 369—391. doi: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2005.11.001.
[29]	Zreda M, Noller J S. 1998. Ages of prehistoric earthquakes revealed by cosmogenic chlorine -36 in a bedrock fault scarp at Hebgen Lake[J]. Science, 282(5391): 1097—1099. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5391.1097. PMID

基岩断层面黏滑和蠕滑时岩石表层光释光信号模拟

SIMULATION OF THE ROCK SURFACE LUMINESCENCE SIGNALS ON BEDROCK FAULT SCARPS BY STICK-SLIP AND CREEP MOVEMENTS

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 3

参考文献 29

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	陈毅, 赵斌, 熊维, 王伟, 余鹏飞, 余建胜, 王东振, 陈威, 乔学军. InSAR数据约束的鲜水河断裂带北西段震间滑动速率及浅部蠕滑特征[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(5): 1074-1091.
[2]	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.
[3]	闫小兵, 周永胜, 李自红, 扈桂让, 任瑞国, 郝雪景. 山西浮山断裂的晚第四纪活动与位移速率[J]. 地震地质, 2022, 44(1): 35-45.
[4]	杨晨艺, 李晓妮, 冯希杰, 朱琳, 李苗, 张恩会. 渭河盆地北缘口镇-关山断层的晚第四纪—现今的活动性[J]. 地震地质, 2021, 43(3): 504-520.
[5]	邹俊杰, 何宏林, 横山祐典, 魏占玉, 石峰, 郝海健, 庄其天, 孙稳, 周朝, 白滨吉起. 基岩断层面的古地震研究方法:国内外应用现状及展望[J]. 地震地质, 2019, 41(6): 1539-1562.
[6]	周永胜. 基岩区断层黏滑与蠕滑的地质标志和岩石力学实验证据[J]. 地震地质, 2019, 41(5): 1266-1272.
[7]	邹俊杰, 何宏林, 石峰, 魏占玉, 苏鹏, 闫小兵. 利用灰岩断层面形貌特征识别罗云山山前断裂古地震信息[J]. 地震地质, 2019, 41(2): 400-418.
[8]	郝明, 李煜航, 秦姗兰. 基于GPS数据的海原-六盘山断裂带滑动速率亏损时空分布[J]. 地震地质, 2017, 39(3): 471-484.
[9]	李翠平, 王萍, 钱达, 唐茂云. 雅鲁藏布江大峡谷入口河段最近两期古堰塞湖事件的年龄[J]. 地震地质, 2015, 37(4): 1136-1146.
[10]	何宏林, 魏占玉, 毕丽思, 徐岳仁. 利用基岩断层面形貌定量特征识别古地震——以霍山山前断裂为例[J]. 地震地质, 2015, 37(2): 400-412.
[11]	孙高元, 龚志军. 乌兰巴托以西断裂活动时代的光释光年代学研究[J]. 地震地质, 2013, 35(2): 322-327.
[12]	刘进峰, 陈杰, 王昌盛. 新疆叶尔羌河上游全新世阶地的释光年代与河流下切速率[J]. 地震地质, 2011, 33(2): 421-429.
[13]	杨会丽, 陈杰, 刘进峰, 余松. 2008年汶川地震相关堆积物的细颗粒石英光释光测年研究[J]. 地震地质, 2011, 33(2): 413-420.
[14]	杨会丽, 陈杰, 冉勇康, 刘进峰, 王昌盛, 李峰. 汶川8.0级地震小鱼洞地表破裂带古地震事件的光释光测年[J]. 地震地质, 2011, 33(2): 402-412.
[15]	雷生学, 陈杰, 刘进峰, 尹金辉, 侯康明, 王昌盛. 南京长江全新世河流阶地的年代及其意义[J]. 地震地质, 2011, 33(2): 391-401.