THE STATIC COULOMB STRESS INFLUENCE OF THE MAINLING M6.9 EARTHQUAKE IN TIBET ON NOVEMBER 18, 2017 TO THE SUBSEQUENT EARTHQUAKES

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2020.05.005

Abstract

Abstract: Based on the rupture model of Mainling M6.9 earthquake in Tibet on November 18, 2017, the spatial distribution of static Coulomb failure stress change at different depths are calculated respectively according to two different receiving fault selection schemes. The one scheme is that we set the parameters of receiving fault at different position to be consistent with the main shock; The other scheme is on the assumption that fault's orientation is randomly distributed under the ground, and we select the receiving fault which is most prone to slide under the influence of coseismic stress field produced by main shock. Therefore, the geometrical orientation of receiving fault will vary with space. According to the above two results of static Coulomb failure stress change, we discussed the static Coulomb stress influence produced by the main shock to short-term aftershocks and the Medog M6.3 earthquake in Tibet on April 24, 2019, respectively. The result shows that: 1)When the parameters of receiving fault are same with the main shock, the proportion of aftershocks in the positive zone of static Coulomb failure stress change is small at each depth. The focal mechanisms of aftershocks in the positive zone of static coulomb fracture stress are deemed similar to the main shock. We thought that they are motivated by the continuous rupture of the main shock. 2)Most of the aftershocks are in the negative zone of static Coulomb failure stress change at each depth. We inferred that this phenomenon which may be on account of the focal mechanisms of these aftershocks is quite different with the main shock. From the result of receiving fault to choose the most prone to slide under the coseismic stress field produced by main shock, we can clearly see that all the aftershocks are within the zone of static Coulomb failure stress change greater than the trigger threshold of 0.01MPa at different depths. It indicates that all the aftershocks are likely to be triggered. It was speculated that the aftershocks in the negative zone of static Coulomb failure stress change occurred in the crushed zone caused by violent rupture of the main shock. There are countless cracks in the crushed zone, and the orientation of these cracks is abundant. Perhaps, because most aftershocks occurred on these various cracks, their focal mechanisms are quite different from the main shock. The value of elastic constants will be reduced significantly in the crushed zone. All the results in this paper also indicate that considering the elastic constants difference between in and out of the source region is beneficial to accurately estimate the static Coulomb stress influence between earthquakes in the source region. 3)Different institutes and authors used different data and methods to get several different focal mechanisms of the Medog earthquake. According to these results, we calculated a central focal mechanism solution, which has a minimum difference with these focal mechanisms. On the basis of this central focal mechanism solution, the static Coulomb stress influence of the Mainling earthquake to the Medog earthquake is calculated quantitatively. Result indicates that the magnitude of static Coulomb failure stress change generated by the Mainling earthquake is quite small on both two nodal planes of the central focal mechanism solution of the Medog earthquake, this means that the Medog earthquake is independent of the Mainling earthquake.

Key words: Mainling M6.9 earthquake, rupture model, receiving fault, static Coulomb failure stress change, Medog M6.3 earthquake

摘要： 基于2017年11月18日西藏米林M6.9地震的破裂模型, 分别计算了2种接收断层选择方案下, 不同深度的静态库伦破裂应力变化的空间分布。一种方案认为接收断层的参数和发震断层一致; 另一种方案假设断层的方位随机分布, 选择在主震同震应力场作用下最容易发生错动的断层面作为接收断层面。根据以上2种方案下静态库伦破裂应力变化的结果, 讨论主震对震后短期内余震以及2019年4月24日西藏墨脱M6.3地震的静态库伦应力的影响。结果表明: 1)当接收断层和发震断层一致时, 各深度处于静态库伦破裂应力变化正值区的余震比例较小, 正值区余震的震源机制和主震相似, 分析认为是主震继续破裂所导致。 2)各深度大部分余震处于静态库伦破裂应力变化的负值区, 考虑可能是由于这些余震和主震的震源机制差异较大所致。通过选择最容易发生错动的断层面作为接收断层面计算静态库伦破裂应力变化的结果可发现, 不同深度的余震均处于静态库伦破裂应力变化大于触发阈值0.01MPa的范围内, 说明所有余震均有被触发的可能性。推测处于静态库伦破裂应力变化负值区的余震可能发生在主震剧烈破裂导致的破碎带内, 从而导致其震源机制解与主震存在较大差异。破碎带的存在会显著降低震源区的弹性常数值, 文中的结果也说明考虑震源区内外弹性常数的差异对准确估计震源区内地震之间的静态库伦应力影响是有益的。 3)根据不同机构和作者利用不同资料和方法给出的墨脱地震的震源机制解, 计算得到一个与这些震源机制差别最小的中心震源机制解, 进而据此中心震源机制解定量计算了米林地震对墨脱地震的静态库伦应力影响。结果显示, 米林地震在墨脱地震中心震源机制解的2个节面上产生的静态库伦破裂应力变化的量值都很小, 说明墨脱地震是一次独立于米林地震的事件。

关键词: 米林M6.9地震, 破裂模型, 接收断层, 静态库伦破裂应力变化, 墨脱M6.3地震

CLC Number:

P315.2

LI Zhen-yue, WAN Yong-ge, JIN Zhi-tong, YANG Fan, HU Xiao-hui, LI Ze-xiao. THE STATIC COULOMB STRESS INFLUENCE OF THE MAINLING M6.9 EARTHQUAKE IN TIBET ON NOVEMBER 18, 2017 TO THE SUBSEQUENT EARTHQUAKES[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2020, 42(5): 1091-1108.

李振月, 万永革, 靳志同, 杨帆, 胡晓辉, 李泽潇. 2017年11月18日西藏米林M6.9地震对后续地震的静态库伦应力的影响[J]. 地震地质, 2020, 42(5): 1091-1108.

References

[1] 白玲, 李国辉, 宋博文. 2017. 2017年西藏米林6.9级地震震源参数及其构造意义[J]. 地球物理学报, 60(12): 4956—4963.
BAI Ling, LI Guo-hui, SONG Bo-wen.2017. The source parameters of the M6.9 Mainling, Tibet earthquake and its tectonic implications[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 60(12): 4956—4963(in Chinese).
[2] 韩佳东. 2018. 米林地震序列监测与南迦巴瓦地震活动性研究[D]. 北京: 中国地震局地球物理研究所.
HAN Jia-dong.2018. Mainling M6.9 earthquake sequences monitored and Namche Barwa seismicity analysis [D]. Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing(in Chinese).
[3] 黄禄渊, 杨树新, 陈连旺, 等. 2016. 2015年尼泊尔M_W7.9地震对强余震的触发作用和对周边断层的影响[J]. 地震研究, 39(2): 187—195.
HUANG Lu-yuan, YANG Shu-xin, CHEN Lian-wang, et al. 2016. Strong aftershocks triggering and stress effect on nearby faults induced by Nepal M_W7.9 earthquake in 2015[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 39(2): 187—195(in Chinese).
[4] 姜辉, 邓志辉, 王海涛, 等. 2011. 从新疆地区主余震活动看地震静态应力触发模型[J]. 地震地质, 33(3): 586—601. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2011.03.009.
JIANG Hui, DENG Zhi-hui, WANG Hai-tao, et al. 2011. Study of static stress triggering model through the activities of main and aftershocks in Xinjiang[J]. Seismology and Geology, 33(3): 586—601(in Chinese).
[5] 靳志同, 万永革, 刘兆才, 等. 2019. 2017年九寨沟M_S7.0地震对周围地区的静态应力影响[J]. 地球物理学报, 62(4): 1282—1299.
JIN Zhi-tong, WAN Yong-ge, LIU Zhao-cai, et al. 2019. The static stress triggering influences of the 2017 M_S7.0 Jiuzhaigou earthquake on neighboring areas[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(4): 1282—1299(in Chinese).
[6] 李瑶, 万永革, 靳志同, 等. 2017. 新疆精河M_W6.3地震产生的静态应力变化研究[J]. 中国地震, 33(4): 671—681.
LI Yao, WAN Yong-ge, JIN Zhi-tong, et al. 2017. The study of static stress variation of the M_W6.3 Jinghe earthquake[J]. Earthquake Research in China, 33(4): 671—681(in Chinese).
[7] 李煜航. 2018. 青藏高原东北横向扩展运动研究[J]. 国际地震动态, (5): 45—47.
LI Yu-hang.2018. Study on the lateral motion of northeastern Tibetan plateau[J]. Recent Developments in World Seismology, (5): 45—47(in Chinese).
[8] 刘云华, 单新建, 张迎峰, 等. 2018. 基于地震波及InSAR数据的2017年11月18日西藏米林M_S6.9地震发震构造[J]. 地震地质, 40(6): 1254—1275.
LIU Yun-hua, SHAN Xin-jian, ZHANG Ying-feng, et al. 2018. Use of seismic waveforms and InSAR data for determination of the seismotectonics of the Mainling M_S6.9 earthquake on Nov.18, 2017[J]. Seismology and Geology, 40(6): 1254—1275(in Chinese).
[9] 万永革. 2001. “地震静态应力触发”问题的研究[D]. 北京: 中国地震局地球物理研究所.
WAN Yong-ge.2001. Study on “static stress triggering” problem[D]. Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing(in Chinese).
[10] 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.
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).
[11] 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.
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).
[12] 万永革, 沈正康, 兰从欣. 2005. 兰德斯地震断层面及其附近余震产生的位移场研究[J]. 地震学报, 27(2): 139—146.
WAN Yong-ge, SHEN Zheng-kang, LAN Cong-xin.2005. Study on displacement field generated by aftershocks in Landers seismic fault plane and its adjacent areas[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 27(2): 139—146(in Chinese).
[13] 万永革, 沈正康, 盛书中, 等. 2010. 2008年新疆于田7.3级地震对周围断层的影响及其正断层机制的区域构造解释[J]. 地球物理学报, 53(2): 280—289.
WAN Yong-ge, SHEN Zheng-kang, SHENG Shu-zhong, et al. 2010. The mechanical effects of the 2008 M_S7.3 Yutian, Xinjiang earthquake on the neighboring faults and its tectonic origin of normal faulting mechanism[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 53(2): 280—289(in Chinese).
[14] 万永革, 沈正康, 曾跃华, 等. 2008. 唐山地震序列应力触发的黏弹性力学模型研究[J]. 地震学报, 30(6): 581—593.
WAN Yong-ge, SHEN Zheng-kang, ZENG Yue-hua, et al. 2008. Study on visco-elastic stress triggering model of the 1976 Tangshan earthquake sequence[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 30(6): 581—593(in Chinese).
[15] 王苏, 李建有, 徐晓雅, 等. 2018. 2016年新疆阿克陶M_S6.7地震和呼图壁M_S6.2地震的余震触发研究[J]. 地震研究, 41(1): 98—103.
WANG Su, LI Jian-you, XU Xiao-ya, et al. 2018. Study on aftershock triggering of the 2016 Aktao M_S6.7 and Hutubi M_S6.2 earthquakes in Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 41(1): 98—103(in Chinese).
[16] 韦伟, 谢超, 周本刚, 等. 2018. 西藏米林M6.9地震及其余震序列地震定位[J]. 科学通报, 63(15): 1493—1501.
WEI Wei, XIE Chao, ZHOU Ben-gang, et al. 2018. Location of the mainshock and aftershock sequences of the M6.9 Mainling earthquake, Tibet[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 63(15): 1493—1501(in Chinese).
[17] 吴宝峰. 2017. 2017年11月18日西藏米林6.9级地震震源机制[J]. 地震地磁观测与研究, 38(6): 26—29.
WU Bao-feng.2017. Determination of the focal mechanism of Milin M6.9 earthquake on Nov.18, 2017 in Tibet[J]. Seismological and Geomagnetic Observation and Research, 38(6): 26—29(in Chinese).
[18] 徐芝纶. 2006. 弹性力学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社.
XU Zhi-lun. 2006. Elastomechanics[M]. Higher Education Press, Beijing(in Chinese).
[19] 尹昕忠, 周本刚, 陈九辉, 等. 2018. 西藏米林M6.9地震早期余震时空分布特征[J]. 地球物理学报, 61(6): 2322—2331.
YIN Xin-zhong, ZHOU Ben-gang, CHEN Jiu-hui, et al. 2018. Spatial-temporal distribution characteristics of early aftershocks following the M6.9 Mainling earthquake in Tibet, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 61(6): 2322—2331(in Chinese).
[20] Kagan Y Y.1991. 3-D rotation of double-couple earthquake sources[J]. Geophysical Journal International, 106(3): 709—716.
[21] King G C P, Stein R S, Lin J.1994. Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(3): 935—953.
[22] Levenberg K.1944. A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares[J]. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 2(2): 164—168.
[23] Li W, Xu C J, Yi L, et al. 2019. Source parameters and seismogenic structure of the 2017 M_W6.5 Mainling earthquake in the Eastern Himalayan Syntaxis(Tibet, China)[J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 169:130—138.
[24] Li Y G, Leary P, Aki K, et al. 1990. Seismic trapped modes in the Oroville and San Andreas fault zones[J]. Science, 249(4970): 763—766.
[25] Li Y G, Vidale J E, Aki K, et al. 1994. Fine structure of the Landers fault zone: Segmentation and the rupture process[J]. Science, 265(5170): 367—370.
[26] Marquardt D W.1963. An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters[J]. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 11(2): 431—441.
[27] Okada Y.1992. Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 82(2): 1018—1040.
[28] Shen X Z, Liu M, Gao Y, et al. 2017. Lithospheric structure across the northeastern margin of the Tibetan plateau: Implications for the plateau's lateral growth[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 459(1): 80—92.
[29] Stein R S.1999. The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence[J]. Nature, 402(6762): 605—609.
[30] Stein R S, King G C P, Lin J.1992. Change in failure stress on the southern San Andreas fault system caused by the 1992 magnitude=7.4 Landers earthquake[J]. Science, 258(5086): 1328—1332.