地震地质 ›› 2025, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (1): 325-344.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2025.01.019

• 研究论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

青海门源2016年MW5.9和2022年MW6.7 2次地震的库仑应力触发作用及其对周边发震断裂的影响

牛鹏飞(), 韩竹军*(), 郭鹏, 刘冠伸, 罗佳宏, 郭钊吾   

  1. 中国地震局地质研究所, 北京 100029
  • 收稿日期:2024-05-26 修回日期:2024-12-28 出版日期:2025-02-20 发布日期:2025-04-09
  • 通讯作者: 韩竹军
  • 作者简介:

    牛鹏飞, 男, 1995年生, 现为中国地震局地质研究所构造地质学专业在读博士研究生, 主要从事活动构造研究, E-mail:

  • 基金资助:
    中国地震局地质研究所基本科研业务专项(IGCEA2206); 国家自然科学基金(42002231)

THE COULOMB STRESS TRIGGERING EFFECT OF 2016 MW5.9 AND 2022 MW6.7 EARTHQUAKES IN MENYUAN, QINGHAI AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE SURROUNDING SEISMOGENIC FAULTS

NIU Peng-fei(), HAN Zhu-jun*(), GUO Peng, LIU Guan-shen, LUO Jia-hong, GUO Zhao-wu   

  1. Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100029
  • Received:2024-05-26 Revised:2024-12-28 Online:2025-02-20 Published:2025-04-09
  • Contact: HAN Zhu-jun

摘要: 分析地震之间的应力传递有助于分析及评估未来强震危险性。2016年门源 MW5.9 地震和2022年门源 MW6.7 地震都发生在祁连-海原断裂带的冷龙岭段, 研究2次地震对西侧“托莱山地震空区”的库仑应力影响可为更深入认识区域强震危险性提供科学依据。文中基于库仑应力理论、USGS(美国地质调查局)给出的有限断层模型及现场调查确定的主要发震断层的几何学和运动学参数, 分析探讨了2016年地震对2022年地震的触发机制、2022年地震对区域强余震的库仑应力作用及2次地震对空区内主要发震断裂的影响。结果表明, 2016年地震对2022年地震具有触发作用。其中, 2022年1月8日和1月12日 MW5.1、MW5.2和 MW4.7 强余震明显受到1月8日 MW6.7 主震的应力触发, 2022年1月12日发生的 MW4.8 余震位于库仑应力卸载区, 主震产生的破裂延迟了 MW4.8 地震的发生; 2016年和2022年2次门源地震对托莱山断裂带东段和肃南-祁连断裂带东段有显著的库仑应力加载作用, 后者产生的库仑应力变化量为0.3891bar和0.1658bar, 高于一般认为的地震触发阈值(0.1bar)。综合分析强震空间迁移趋势、余震空间分布、应变分配、古地震研究等资料, 发现托莱山断裂带东段和肃南-祁连断裂带东段的应力积累可能处于较高的状态, 2次门源地震的库仑应力加载将进一步增加2条发震断裂带东段未来发生强震的危险性。

关键词: 门源MW5.9地震, 门源MW6.7地震, 库仑应力变化, 肃南-祁连断裂带, 托莱山断裂带, 冷龙岭断裂带

Abstract:

Strong earthquakes are among the most severe natural disasters on Earth. Earthquake rupture involves complex physical processes, including fault slip, stress release, and seismic wave propagation. A deep understanding of the rupture processes of major earthquakes and the potential for triggered activity within regional active fault systems is critical for assessing the risk of strong earthquakes in a given area. Analyzing the stress transfer between earthquakes helps assess and evaluate the future seismic hazard. The Qilian-Haiyuan fault zone is an important boundary fault on the northeastern margin of the Tibetan plateau. It plays a crucial role in absorbing and accommodating the convergence of the Indian Plate towards the Eurasian Plate in a NNE direction. With a total length of approximately 1000km, it is primarily composed of the Tolaishan Fault, the Lenglongling Fault, the Jinqianghe Fault, the Maomaoshan Fault, the Laohushan Fault, and the Haiyuan Fault. The 2016 MW5.9 Menyuan earthquake and the 2022 MW6.7 Menyuan earthquake both occurred in the Lenglongling segment of the Qilian-Haiyuan fault zone. Studying the effects of these two earthquakes on the Coulomb stress of the “Tuolaishan seismic gap” to the west can provide the scientific basis for a deeper understanding of the regional seismic hazard. This article is based on the Coulomb stress theory, a finite fault model provided by the United States Geological Survey(USGS), and the geometric and kinematic parameters of the main seismogenic fault determined through field investigations. It analyzes and discusses the triggering mechanism of the 2016 earthquake on the 2022 earthquake, the Coulomb stress effects of the 2022 earthquake on regional strong aftershocks, and the impact of the two earthquakes on the main seismogenic faults in the unoccupied area. The results indicate that the 2016 earthquake triggered the 2022 earthquake. Specifically, the strong aftershocks of MW5.1, MW5.2, and MW4.7 on January 8 and 12 in 2022 were significantly stress-triggered by the main shock of MW6.7 on January 8, while the MW4.8 aftershock on January 12th was located in a Coulomb stress unloading zone, possibly delaying its occurrence. The two Menyuan earthquakes in 2016 and 2022 significantly loaded Coulomb stress on the eastern segments of the Tuolaishan fault zone and the Sunan-Qilian fault zone, with the latter experiencing Coulomb stress changes of 0.3891bar and 0.1658bar, exceeding the commonly accepted seismic triggering threshold of 0.1bar. The 1920 Haiyuan earthquake, the 1927 Gulang earthquake, and the 2016 and 2022 Menyuan earthquakes show a spatial westward migration pattern, which may indicate a westward stress transfer trend. After the 2022 earthquake, the aftershock zones were mainly distributed in two directions: east-west(EW)and north-northwest(NNW). The former extends toward the eastern segment of the Tuolaishan fault zone, where stress was not fully released during the 2022 earthquake. The NNW-trending aftershock zone extends toward the east segment of the Subei-Qilian fault zone, where there is a lack of aftershocks, indicating that fault stress was not fully released during the earthquake. The eastern segments of the Tuolaishan fault zone and the Sunan-Qilian fault zone jointly absorbed and accommodated the left-lateral shear deformation of the central-western segment of the Qilian-Haiyuan fault zone. Trench excavation revealed that the most recent surface-rupturing earthquake on the eastern segment of the Tuolaishan fault zone occurred(6080±450) a BP, while that on the east segment of the Sunan-Qilian fault zone occurred between 3500 and 2328 a BP. Therefore, by comprehensively analyzing data on the spatial migration trends of strong earthquakes, the spatial distribution of aftershocks, strain distribution, and studies on ancient earthquakes, it was found that the stress accumulation in the eastern segment of the Tuolai Mountain fault zone and the eastern segment of the Sunan-Qilian fault zone may be at a relatively high level. With the Coulomb stress loading from the two recent Menyuan earthquakes, the future seismic hazard of the eastern segments of these two fault zones is likely to increase further. The results of this study provide a reference basis for delineating seismic hazard zones on the northeastern margin of the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau.

Key words: Menyuan MW5.9 earthquake, Menyuan MW6.7 earthquake, Coulomb stress change, Sunan-Qilian Fault, Tuolaishan Fault, Lenglongling Fault