DISCUSSION ON RUPTURE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 2013 TONGLIAO M5.3 EARTHQUAKE AND ITS AFTERSHOCKS

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2018.03.013

Abstract

Abstract: On two velocity models, the HypoDD method is used to accurately locate the Tongliao M5.3 earthquake sequence, then the CAP method is used to invert the focal mechanism solutions. The parameters of the seismogenic fault plane are fitted quantitatively by the small earthquake distribution and the regional stress field. The geometry, rupture features and possible seismogenic structure of the Tongliao M5.3 earthquake are comprehensively determined. The HypoDD relocation results show that this earthquake is located at 42.95°N, 122.37°E, the whole sequence trends in NW and major aftershocks (M_L ≥ 3.0) strike in NEE direction. With the time elapsed, the aftershocks extended to the shallow crust gradually. Comparing the focal mechanism solutions and relocation results, we determine that the fitted causative fault based on NNW-trending aftershock distribution is reliable, which has the top left corner (43.00°N, 122.35°E, depth 3.3km), lower left corner (43.00°N, 122.35°E, depth 8.9km), upper right corner (42.92°N, 122.37°E, depth 3.3km), lower right corner (42.92°N, 122.37°E, depth 8.9km), extending range 3km×7km, trending in 349° (NNW), dip angle 86° (nearly vertical), and slip angle 15°. It is inferred that whole process of main shock rupture is from the source to the NW and SE sides as a shear. The rupture degree is larger in southeast where the late rupture concentrated, and did not reach the surface.

Key words: Tongliao 5.3 earthquakes, fracture characteristic, fault plane fitting, accurate earthquake location, focal mechanism

摘要： 对比使用了2种速度模型，采用HypoDD方法对通辽5.3级地震序列进行了精确定位，采用CAP方法反演了5.3级地震的震源机制解，利用精确定位后的小震分布和区域应力场定量拟合了发震断层面参数，综合判定了通辽5.3级地震的断层面几何形态、破裂特征及可能的发震构造。HypoDD定位结果显示，通辽5.3级地震的位置为42.95°N，122.37°E，序列整体呈NW向展布，早期余震分散分布于NW方向，晚期余震则集中分布于NEE方向；随着时间推移，余震活动逐渐向地壳浅部扩展。通过与主震的震源机制解对比分析，认为以NNW向余震分布进行断层拟合的结果比较符合主震的断层面破裂特征；即通辽5.3级主震的发震断层面的空间顶点坐标为左上角（43.00°N，122.35°E；深度3.3km）、左下角（43.00°N，122.35°E；深度8.9km）、右上角（42.92°N，122.37°E；深度8.9km）、右下角（42.92°N，122.37°E；深度3.3km）。按照假定的矩形进行断层形状规划，则通辽5.3级主震断层面的扩展范围为5.6km×9.0km，断层面走向349°（NNW向）、倾角86°、滑动角15°，断层面错动类型为左旋走滑型；由此推断主震破裂的整体过程自震源处向断层的NW和SE两侧剪切破裂，东南侧破裂程度较大，晚期破裂集中于此但破裂未及地表。

关键词: 通辽5.3级地震, 破裂特征, 断层面拟合, 地震精确定位, 震源机制

CLC Number:

P315.2

HAN Xiao-ming, ZHANG Fan, CHEN Li-feng, LI Juan, HU Bo. DISCUSSION ON RUPTURE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 2013 TONGLIAO M5.3 EARTHQUAKE AND ITS AFTERSHOCKS[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2018, 40(3): 685-697.

韩晓明, 张帆, 陈立峰, 李娟, 胡博. 2013年通辽5.3级地震及余震的破裂特征讨论[J]. 地震地质, 2018, 40(3): 685-697.

References

李钦祖. 1980. 华北地壳应力场的基本特征［J］. 地球物理学报, 23(4):376-388. LI Qin-zu. 1980. General features of the stress field in the crust of North China［J］. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 23(4):376-388(in Chinese).
卢造勋, 姜德禄, 白云, 等. 2005. 东北地区地壳上地幔结构的探测与研究［J］. 东北地震研究, 21(1):1-8. LU Zao-xun, JIANG De-lu, BAI yun, et al. 2005. Exploration and research on the structure of the crust and upper mantle in Northeast China［J］. Seismological Research of Northeast China, 21(1):1-8(in Chinese).
卢造勋, 蒋秀琴, 潘科, 等. 2002. 中朝地台东北缘地区的地震层析成像［J］. 地球物理学报, 45(3):338-352. LU Zao-xun, JIANG Xiu-qin, PAN Ke, et al. 2002. Seismic tomography in the northeast margin area of Sino-Korean platform［J］. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 45(3):338-352(in Chinese).
吕坚, 王晓山, 苏金蓉, 等. 2013. 芦山7.0级地震序列的震源位置与震源机制解特征［J］. 地球物理学报, 56(5):1753-1763. LÜ Jian, WANG Xiao-shan, SU Jin-rong, et al. 2013. Hypocentral location and source mechanism of the M_S7.0 Lushan earthquake sequence［J］. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 56(5):1753-1763(in Chinese).
马杏垣主编.1989.中国岩石圈动力学地图集［Z］.北京:中国地图出版社. MA Xing-yuan(ed). 1989. Lithospheric Dynamics Atlas of China［Z］. China Cartographic Publishing House, Bejing(in Chinese).
孟宪森, 关玉辉, 姜锦华. 2007. 开原-赤峰断裂两侧地震序列活动的差异［J］. 东北地震研究, 23(2):22-29. MENG Xian-sen, GUAN Yu-hui, JIANG Jin-hua. 2007. Difference of the earthquake sequences activity on the both sides of Kaiyuan-Chifeng fault［J］. Seismological Research of Northeast China, 23(2):22-29(in Chinese).
万永革, 沈正康, 刁桂苓, 等. 2008. 利用小震分布和区域应力场确定大震断层面参数方法及其在唐山地震序列中的应用［J］. 地球物理学报, 51(3):793-804. WAN Yong-ge, SHEN Zheng-kang, DIAO Gui-ling, et al. 2008. An algorithm of fault parameter determination using distribution of small earthquakes and parameters of regional stress field and its application to Tangshan earthquake sequence［J］. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 51(3):793-804(in Chinese).
万永革, 吴忠良, 周公威, 等. 2000. 根据震源的2个节面的走向角和倾角求滑动角［J］. 地震地磁观测与研究, 21(5):26-30. WAN Yong-ge, WU Zhong-liang, ZHOU Gong-wei, et al. 2000. How to get rake angle of the earthquake fault from known strike and dip of the two nodal planes［J］. Seismological and Geomagnetic Observation and Research, 21(5):26-30(in Chinese).
危自根, 陈凌. 2012. 东北地区至华北北缘地壳结构的区域差异:地壳厚度与波速比的联合约束［J］. 地球物理学报, 55(11):3601-3614. WEI Zi-gen, CHEN Ling. 2012. Regional differences in crustal structure beneath northeastern China and northern North China Craton:constraints from crustal thickness and V_p/V_s ratio［J］. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 55(11):3601-3614(in Chinese).
谢富仁, 崔效峰, 赵建涛, 等. 2004. 中国大陆及邻区现代构造应力场分区［J］. 地球物理学报, 47(4):654-662. XIE Fu-ren, CUI Xiao-feng, ZHAO Jian-tao, et al. 2004. Regional division of the recent tectonic stress field in China and adjacent areas［J］. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 47(4):654-662(in Chinese).
徐纪人, 赵志新, 石川有三. 2008. 中国大陆地壳应力场与构造运动区域特征研究［J］. 地球物理学报, 51(3):770-781. XU Ji-ren, ZHAO Zhi-xin, Yuzo I. 2008. Regional characteristics of crustal stress field and tectonic motions in and around Chinese mainland［J］. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 51(3):770-781(in Chinese).
许忠淮. 1985. 用滑动方向拟合法反演唐山余震区的平均应力场［J］. 地震学报, 7(4):349-362. XU Zhong-huai. 1985. Mean stress field in Tangshan aftershock area obtained from focal mechanism data by fitting slip directions［J］. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 7(4):349-362(in Chinese).
郑勇, 马宏生, 吕坚, 等. 2009. 汶川地震强余震(M_S ≥ 5.6)的震源机制解及其与发震构造的关系［J］. 中国科学(D辑), 39(4):413-426. Zheng Yong, MA Hong-sheng, LÜ Jian, et al. 2009. Source mechanism of strong aftershocks(M_S ≥ 5.6)of the 2008/05/12 Wenchuan earthquake and the implication for seismotectonics［J］. Science in China(Ser D), 52(6):739-753.
Waldhauser F, Ellsworth W L. 2000. A double-difference earthquake location algorithm:method and application to the Northern Hayward Fault, California［J］. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90(6):1353-1368.
Wan Y G. 2010. Contemporary tectonic stress field in China［J］. Earthquake Science, 23(4):377-386.
Zhu L P, Helmberger D V. 1996. Advancement in source estimation techniques using broadband regional seismograms［J］. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86(5):1634-1641.
Zhu L P, Rivera L A. 2002. A note on the dynamic and static displacements from a point source in multilayered media［J］. Geophysical Journal International, 148(3):619-627.

[1]	FAN Wen-jie. CHARACTERISTICS OF TECTONIC STRESS FIELD AROUND THE YANGBI M_S6.4 EARTHQUAKE AND ITS SURROUNDING AREAS ON MAY 21, 2021 AND ITS GEODYNAMIC IMPLICATION [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2023, 45(1): 208-230.
[2]	ZHANG Ke, WANG Xin, YANG Hong-ying, WANG Yue, XU Yan, LI Jing. THE CHARACTERISTICS AND SEISMOGENIC STRUCTURE ANALYSIS OF THE 2021 YANGBI M_S6.4 EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE, YUNNAN [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2023, 45(1): 231-251.
[3]	DENG Wen-ze, LIU Jie, YANG Zhi-gao, SUN Li, ZHANG Xue-mei. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS FOR RUPTURE PROCESS OF THE MAY 22TH, 2021, MADOI(QINGHAI) M_S7.4 EARTHQUAKE [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2022, 44(4): 1059-1070.
[4]	LI Zong-xu, HE Ri-zheng, JI Zhan-bo, LI Yu-lan, NIU Xiao. THE FOCAL MECHANISM AND TECTONIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE M_S5.6 EARTHQUAKE ON JULY 24, 2009 IN NIMA, TIBET [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2022, 44(4): 992-1010.
[5]	WANG Xiao-shan, WAN Yong-ge. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRUSTAL STRESS FIELD AND ITS DIRECTION CONVERGENCE BEFORE THE WENCHUAN EARTHQUAKE [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2022, 44(2): 363-377.
[6]	YU Zhan-yang, SHEN Xu-zhang, LIANG Hao, ZHENG Wen-jun, LIU Xu-zhou. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR FAULTS AND STRESS FIELD IN WEIHE-YUNCHENG BASIN CONSTRAINED BY SEISMIC ACTIVITY AND FOCAL MECHANISM SOLUTIONS [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2022, 44(2): 395-413.
[7]	ZHANG Zhi-wei, LONG Feng, ZHAO Xiao-yan, WANG Di. STUDY ON FOCAL MECHANISM SOLUTION AND STRESS FIELD CHARACTERISTICS IN SICHUAN AND YUNNAN AREA [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2022, 44(1): 170-187.
[8]	ZHAO Tao, WANG Ying, MA Ji, SHAO Ruo-tong, XU Yi-fei, HU Jing. RELOCATION AND FOCAL MECHANISM SOLUTIONS OF THE 2021 MADUO, QINGHAI M_S7.4 EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND EGOLOGY, 2021, 43(4): 790-805.
[9]	WANG Ying, ZHAO Tao, HU Jing, LIU Chun. RELOCATION AND FOCAL MECHANISM SOLUTIONS OF THE 2021 YANGBI, YUNNAN M_S6.4 EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND EGOLOGY, 2021, 43(4): 847-863.
[10]	CUI Ren-sheng, ZHAO Cui-ping, ZHOU Lian-qing, CHEN Yang. SEISMICITY FEATURE AND SEISMOGENIC FAULT OF THE M_S6.4 EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE ON JANUARY 19, 2020 IN JIASHI, XINJIANG [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2021, 43(2): 329-344.
[11]	LI Jin, JIANG Hai-kun, WEI Yun-yun, SUN Zhao-jie. PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR SEISMOGENIC STRUCTURE OF THE M_S6.4 JIASHI EARTHQUAKE ON JANUARY 19, 2020 [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2021, 43(2): 357-376.
[12]	ZHANG Wen-ting, JI Ling-yun, ZHU Liang-yu, JIANG Feng-yun, XU Xiao-xue. A TYPICAL THRUST RUPTURE EVENT OCCURRING IN THE FORELAND BASIN OF THE SOUTHERN TIANSHAN: THE 2020 XINJIANG JIASHI M_S6.4 EARTHQUAKE [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2021, 43(2): 394-409.
[13]	LIU Xu-zhou, SHEN Xu-zhang, HE Xiao-hui, PU Ju. RELOCATION OF THE 28 OCTOBER 2019 XIAHE M5.7 EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE AND ANALYSIS OF SEISMOGENIC FAULT [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2021, 43(1): 197-208.
[14]	LI Qi-lei, LI Yu-li, TU Hong-wei, LIU Wen-bang. THE RELOCATION, FOCAL MECHANISMS OF THE DINGQING EARTHQUAKES AND A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF ITS SEISMOGENIC STRUCTURE [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2021, 43(1): 209-231.
[15]	XU Zhi-guo, WANG Jun-cheng, WANG Zong-chen, LIANG Shan-shan, SHI Jian-yu. FOCAL MECHANISM AND TSUNAMI NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 2019 MOLUCCA SEA M_W7.1 EARTHQUAKE [J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2020, 42(6): 1417-1431.