Rupture process of the MS6.9 Menyuan，Qinghai， earthquake on January 8, 2022
-
摘要: 基于近台强震波形数据可快速且稳定地反演地震破裂过程。利用国家烈度速报与预警项目实施过程中青海地区新建和改建的强震动观测台站的波形数据，基于迭代反褶积和叠加法（IDS）对2022年1月8日青海MS6.9地震的震源破裂过程进行了反演。反演结果显示：破裂自初始破裂点向南东东方向扩展的单侧破裂，持续时间约14 s （主要集中在2—8 s），最大滑动量为3.6 m，破裂长度约为20 km。这表明破裂在纵向上自深部向浅部扩展，这与现场调查的地表破裂吻合。余震序列空间分布展示出显著的分段特征，预示破裂区复杂的构造，该地区未来仍然有发生强震的可能性。Abstract: Based on the waveform data observed by the near field strong-motion stations, the earthquake rupture process can be quickly and stably inverted. This paper collected waveform data recorded by the strong-motion stations reconstructed in Qinghai during the implementation of the National Rapid Intensity Report and Seismic Early Warning Project. Based on these data, the rupture process of the Qinghai MS6.9 earthquake on January 8, 2022 was inverted by the iterative deconvolution and stacking method （IDS）. The rupture model from inversion show that the rupture extends from the initial rupture point to a unilateral rupture in the southeast-east direction, with a duration of about 14 seconds （mainly focus on 2−8 seconds）, a maximum slip of 3.6m, and a rupture length of about 20 km. The rupture extends longitudinally from the deep to the shallow, which is consistent with the surface rupture found in the field investigation. The spatial distribution of aftershock sequences shows significant segmentation characteristics, indicating complex tectonic transitions in the rupture zone. There is still the possibility of strong earthquakes in this area in the future.
-
Key words:
- Menyuan earthquake /
- rupture process /
- strong motion data /
- IDS method
-
图 1 2022门源MS6.9地震周边强震台站的分布
三角形标示强震台位置，最终参与反演的强震台站以紫色三角标示
Figure 1. Distribution of strong motion stations near 2022 Menyuan MS6.9 earthquake
图 2 2022门源MS6.9地震的理论波形与观测波形对比
黑线表示各个强震台的三分量观测波形，自上而下分别是东西（EW）、南北（NS）和垂直（UD）分量的波形，台站名称标示在垂东西向波形数图的左上。红线表示基于破裂过程的理论地震图，观测地震图和理论地震图的拟合度标示在各分量波形图左下。
Figure 2. Comparison of theoretical and observed waveforms of the 2022 Menyuan MS6.9 earthquake
The black lines represent the three-component observation waveform observed by strong motion station. Each panel represents the east-west， north-south，and vertical components from top to bottom， respectively，and the station code is marked on the upper left of the east-west component waveform. The red line represents the theoretical seismogram based on the inverted rupture process，and the cross correlation between the observed and the theoretical waveform is marked in the lower left of echo component
图 3 2022门源MS6.9地震断层面静态滑移分布（圆圈表示主震位置）
Figure 3. Static slip distribution on the fault plane of the 2022 MS6.0 Menyuan earthquake （The solid white circle indicates the epicenter of the main shock）
图 4 2022门源MS6.9地震震源时间函数
Figure 4. Source time function of the 2022 MS6.0 Menyuan earthquake
图 5 2022门源MS6.9地震时空破裂过程
（a） 滑动速率时空分布；（b） 累积滑动量时空分布
Figure 5. The spatiotemporal rupture process of the 2022 Menyuan MS6.9 earthquake
（a）Distribution of slip rate；（b） Distribution of cumulative slip
图 6 2022门源MS6.0地震静态滑移分布与震源时间函数（引自USGS，2022）
Figure 6. Static slip distribution and source time function of the 2022 MS6.0 Menyuan earthquake （after USGS，2022）
图 7 2022门源MS6.9地震序列（主震以白色圆圈表示，余震以黑色圆圈表示）与2016年门源MS6.4地震序列（紫色圆圈）空间分布对比
Figure 7. Spatial distribution comparison between the 2022 MS6.9 Menyuan earthquake sequence （the white circle stands for mainshock and the black circle indicates aftershock） and the 2016 MS6.4 Menyuan earthquake sequence （purple circles）
-
陈培善,刘家森. 1975. 用位错模型研究震级与烈度的关系[J]. 地球物理学报,18(3):183–195. Chen P S,Liu J S. 2014. A study of the relation between seismic magnitude and intensity by using the dislocation model[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics,18(3):183–195 (in Chinese). 郭增建, 吴瑾冰. 2000. 海原大震的历史意义及大震减灾对策的讨论: 纪念海原地震80周年[J]. 国际地震动态（12）: 2-5. Guo J Z,Wu J B. 2014. Historical significance of the great Haiyuan earthquake and discussion on measures for disaster reduction of great earthquakes:The Eightieth Anniversary of Haiyuan Earthquake[J]. Recent Developments in World Seismology,(12):2–5 (in Chinese). 胡朝忠, 杨攀新, 李智敏, 黄帅堂, 赵妍, 陈丹, 熊仁伟, 陈庆宇 2016. 2016年1月21日青海门源6.4级地震的发震机制探讨. 地球物理学报 59（5）: 1637-1646. Hu C Z, Yang P X, Li Z M, Huang S T, Zhao Y, Chen D, Xiong R W, Chen Q Y. Seismogenic mechanism of the 21 January 2016 Menyuan, Qinghai MS6.4 earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics （in Chinese）. 2016, 59（5）: 1637-1646, doi: 10.6038/cjg20160509（in Chinese）. 郑绪君,张勇,汪荣江. 2017. 采用IDS方法反演强震数据确定2017年8月8日九寨沟地震的破裂过程[J]. 地球物理学报,60(23):4421–4430. doi: 10.6038/cjg20171128 Zheng X J,Zhang Y,Wang R J. 2017. Estimating the rupture process of the 8 August 2017 Jiuzhaigou earthquake by inverting strong-motion data with IDS method[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics,60(23):4421–4430 (in Chinese). 赵凌强,孙翔宇,詹艳,杨海波,王庆良,郝明,刘雪华. 2022. 2022年1月8日青海门源Ms6.9地震孕震环境和冷龙岭断裂分段延展特征[J]. 地球物理学报,65(4):1536–1546. doi: 10.6038/cjg2022Q0051 Zhao L Q,Sun X Y,Zhan Y,Yang H B,Wang Q L,Hao M,Liu X H. 2022. The seismogenic model of the Menyuan Ms6.9 earthquake on January 8,2022,Qinghai Province and segmented extensional characteristics of the Lenglonglin fault[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics,65(4):1536–1546 (in Chinese). 中国地震局. 2022. 中国地震局发布青海门源6.9级地震烈度图[EB/OL]. [2022-01-12]. https://www.cea.gov.cn/cea/xwzx/fzjzyw/5646200/index.html. China Earthquake Administration. 2022. China Earthquake Administration released the intensity map of Ms 6.9 earthquake in Menyuan, Qinghai[EB/OL]. [2022-01-12]. https://www.cea.gov.cn/cea/xwzx/fzjzyw/5646200/index.html （in Chinese）. 邹谨敞, 邵顺妹, 蒋荣发. 1994. 古浪地震滑坡的分布规律和构造意义[J]. 中国地震（2）: 168-174. Zou J C,Shao S M,Jiang R F. 1994. Distribution and tectonic implications on the Gulang seismic landslide[J]. Earthquake Research in China,(2):168–174 (in Chinese). Beroza G C. 1991. Near-source modeling of the Loma Prieta earthquake:Evidence for heterogeneous slip and implications for earthquake hazard[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,81(5):1603–1621. doi: 10.1785/bssa0810051603 Chousianitis K,Konca A O. 2021. Rupture process of the 2020 Mw7.0 Samos earthquake and its effect on surrounding active faults[J]. Geophys. Res. Lett.,48(14):e2021GL094162. doi: 10.1029/2021GL09416 Das S,Henry C. 2003. Spatial relation between main earthquake slip and its aftershock distribution[J]. Rev Geophys.,41(3):1013. doi: 10.1029/2021GL094162 Deng Y F,Shen W S,Xu T,Ritzwoller M H. 2015. Crustal layering in northeastern Tibet:a case study based on joint inversion of receiver functions and surface wave dispersion[J]. Geophys. J. Int.,203(1):692–706. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggv321 Duputel Z,Rivera L,Kanamori H,Hayes G. 2012. W phase source inversion for moderate to large earthquakes (1990-2010)[J]. Geophys J Int,189(2):1125–1147. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05419.x Kanamori H. and Rivera L 2008. Source inversion of W phase:speeding up seismic tsunami warning[J]. Geophys J Int,175(1):222–238. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03887.x Laske G, Masters G, Ma Z T, Pasyanos M. 2013. Update on CRUST1.0: A 1-degree Global Model of Earth's Crust[C]//Geophysical Research Abstracts, 15. Vienna: EGU: 2013-2658. Li,Y,Jiang W,Li Y,Shen W,He,Li B,Li Q,Jiao Q and Tian Y. 2022. Coseismic Rupture Model and Tectonic Implications of the January 7 2022,Menyuan Mw 6.6 Earthquake Constraints from InSAR Observations and Field Investigation[J]. Remote Sens,14(9):2111. doi: 10.3390/rs14092111 Liu M, Li H Y, Peng Z G, Ouyang L B, Ma Y H, Ma J X, Liang Z J, Huang Y F, 2019. Spatial-temporal distribution of early aftershocks following the 2016 Ms 6.4 Menyuan, Qinghai, China Earthquake[J]. Tectonophysics, 766: 469-479, doi: /10.1016/j.tecto.2019.06.022. Pan S Z,Niu F L. 2011. Large contrasts in crustal structure and composition between the Ordos plateau and the NE Tibetan plateau from receiver function analysis[J]. Earth Planet Sci Lett,303(3-4):291–298. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2011.01.007 USGS. 2022. M6.6: Northern Qinghai, China [EB/OL]. [2022-01-07]. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000g9zq/finite-fault. Wang Q,Niu F L,Gao Y,Chen Y T. 2016. Crustal structure and deformation beneath the NE margin of the Tibetan plateau constrained by teleseismic receiver function data[J]. Geophys J Int,204(1):167–179. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggv420 Wang R J. 1999. A simple orthonormalization method for stable and efficient computation of Green's functions[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,89(3):733–741. doi: 10.1785/bssa0890030733 Wells D L,Coppersmith K J. 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude,rupture length,rupture width,rupture area,and surface displacement[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,84(4):974–1002. doi: 10.1785/BSSA0840040974 Yang H F, Wang D, Guo R M, Xie M Y, Y. Zang Y, Wang Y, Yao Q, Cheng C, An Y R, Zhang Y Y. 2022. Rapid report of the 8 January 2022 Ms6.9 Menyuan earthquake, Qinghai, China[J]. Earthquake Research Advances, 2（1）, doi: 10.1016/j.eqrea.2022.100113. Zhang Y,Wang R J,Zschau J,Chen Y T,Parolai S,Dahm T. 2014. Automatic imaging of earthquake rupture processes by iterative deconvolution and stacking of high rate GPS and strong motion seismograms[J]. J Geophys Res:Solid Earth,119(7):5633–5650. doi: 10.1002/2013JB010469 Zhang Y,Wang R J,Chen Y T. 2015. Stability of rapid finite‐fault inversion for the 2014 Mw 6.1 South Napa earthquake[J]. Geophys Res Lett,42(23):10,263–10,272. doi: 10.1002/2015gl066244 Zheng G,Wang H,Wright T J,Lou Y D,Zhang R,Zhang W X,Shi C,Huang J F,Wei N. 2017. Crustal Deformation in the India-Eurasia Collision Zone From 25 Years of GPS Measurements[J]. J Geophys Res:Solid Earth,22(11):9290–9312. doi: 10.1002/2017jb014465 Zheng X J,Zhang Y,Wang R J,Zhao L,Huang Q H. 2020. Automatic Inversions of Strong‐Motion Records for Finite‐Fault Models of Significant Earthquakes in and Around Japan[J]. J Geophys Res:Solid Earth,125(9):e2020JB019992. doi: 10.1029/2020jb019992 -
下载:
查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 246
- HTML全文浏览量: 94
- PDF下载量: 67
- 被引次数: 0