Abstract: The opinions of two papers from this publication are discussed in the paper. One is that the Tangshan Fault is a high-angle, west-dip and thrust with strike-slip fault. The other is that the Fuzhuang-Xihe Fault distributed at the east side of Tangshan city is the seismogenic fault of Tangshan earthquake. For the former opinion, it needs to explain the relationship between the active style of the thrust Tangshan Fault and the formation genesis of a Quaternary depression along the west side of Tangshan city. For the latter opinion, if the Fuzhuang-Xihe Fault is the seismogenic fault of the Tangshan earthquake, it needs to explain the genesis relationship between this surface rupture zone with west-dip and the surface rupture that extents through the Tangshan city with strike-slip. And it needs more evidence to get rid of the possibility, that is, the surface rupture belongs to secondary structure rupture. The paper suggests doing more work on the active fault that controls the Caobo Quaternary depression.

Key words: seismogenic fault, the Tangshan earthquake, Quaternary depression, secondary structure rupture

摘要： 对《地震地质》刊登的两篇文章中有关唐山断裂是高角度西倾的逆冲走滑断裂及唐山市东侧付庄-西河断裂是唐山地震的发震断裂的观点进行讨论。笔者认为,如果唐山地震断层是西倾的逆冲走滑活动,需要考虑唐山逆冲断裂的活动方式与唐山市西侧第四纪凹陷之间的关系;如果付庄-西河断裂是唐山地震震源构造的地表破裂,需要解释该西倾的倾滑断裂带与唐山市内走滑地裂缝带的成因联系。此外,还需要更有说服力的证据排除该地表破裂带是次生构造破裂的可能。建议对控制草泊第四纪凹陷的活动断裂开展调查。

关键词: 发震断层, 唐山地震, 第四纪凹陷, 次生构造破裂