青藏高原及周缘近年来典型强震地表破裂特征及其构造指示意义OA
Characteristics of surface ruptures produced by recent major earthquakes on the Tibetan Plateau and its surrounding areas,and their tectonic implications
同震地表破裂是确定发震构造、揭示地壳变形机制和评估地震风险的关键依据.为认识青藏高原不同类型断层活动的地表变形与灾害发育特征,并揭示近年来一系列强震所反映的青藏高原现今地壳变形规律,在地表调查的基础上,系统整理和分析了青藏高原及周边地区 2021年以来发生的 5次M>6.5地震的地表破裂特征.以 2021年 MW 7.4玛多、2022年 MW 6.6门源/MW 6.6泸定、2024年 MW 7.0乌什和 2025年 MW 7.1定日地震为典型震例,综合遥感解译、野外调查和无人机摄影测量结果,并结合地震学与大地测量学数据,精细解析了上述震例的地表破裂及同震位移分布特征.结果显示:走滑型的玛多和门源地震分别形成了长约 150~160 km和 22~31 km的同震地表破裂带,最大同震地表位移量分别为~3.6 m和~3.7 m,但同为走滑型的泸定地震仅在二台子发现长约 450 m的地表破裂;逆冲型的乌什地震主震未产生同震地表破裂,但 MW 5.7强余震形成了近 5 km长、最大垂直位移约 1.7 m的同震地表破裂带;正断型的定日地震形成了长约 25~36.5 km、最大垂直位移约 2.7 m的同震地表破裂带.综合区域强震的时空分布特征显示,在 2022年泸定地震前,青藏高原强震主要围绕巴颜喀拉活动地块周缘发生丛集活动,此后发生的乌什地震和定日地震均远离巴颜喀拉地块,可能指示该活动地块的强震丛集期已经结束.进一步结合震源机制解结果可知,青藏高原及周缘近年来的中—强地震事件中,走滑型地震占主导地位,这可能与青藏高原现今地壳变形主要以活动块体沿大型走滑断裂带发生侧向挤出的方式进行调节与吸收有关.上述研究结果可为青藏高原地区地震监测预警、防震减灾工作及区域重大工程的规划建设与抗震设防等提供基础数据与参考.
[Objective]Coseismic surface ruptures provide key evidence for identifying the seismogenic structures of earthquakes,elucidating crustal deformation mechanisms,and assessing seismic hazards.To understand the surface deformation and disaster development characteristics associated with different types of fault activity on the Tibetan Plateau,and to reveal the current crustal deformation patterns reflected by a series of strong earthquakes in recent years,we systematically compiled and analyzed the surface rupture characteristics of five M>6.5 earthquakes that have occurred on the Tibetan Plateau and surrounding areas since 2021,based on field surveys.[Methods]We used the 2021 MW 7.4 Maduo,2022 MW 6.6 Menyuan,2022 MW 6.6 Luding,2024 MW 7.0 Wushi,and 2025 MW 7.1 Dingri earthquakes as representative cases.We integrated results from remote sensing interpretation,field surveys,and UAV photogrammetry,as well as seismological and geodetic data,to conduct a detailed analysis of the surface rupture and coseismic displacement distribution characteristics of these events.[Results]The strike-slip Maduo and Menyuan earthquakes formed coseismic surface rupture zones approximately 150~160 km and 22~31 km long,respectively,with maximum coseismic surface displacements of~3.6 m and~3.7 m.Contrastingly,the Luding earthquake,also a strike-slip event,exhibited a surface rupture only~450 m long at Ertaizi.The strong,MW 5.7 aftershock of the thrust-type Wushi earthquake generated a coseismic surface rupture zone~5 km long with a maximum vertical displacement of~1.7 m,while the normal-fault-type Dingri earthquake formed a coseismic surface rupture zone 25~36.5 km long with a maximum vertical displacement of~2.7 m.[Conclusions]A comprehensive analysis of the spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of major regional earthquakes indicates that,prior to the 2022 Luding earthquake,major earthquakes on the Tibetan Plateau were primarily clustered around the periphery of the active Bayan Har block.The subsequent Wushi and Dingri earthquakes both occurred far from the Bayan Har block,suggesting that the clustering period of major earthquakes in this active block may have ended.Further analysis of focal mechanism solutions indicates that strike-slip earthquakes have dominated recent moderate-to-strong seismic events on the Tibetan Plateau and its periphery.This may be related to the fact that current crustal deformation on the Tibetan Plateau is primarily regulated and absorbed through the lateral extrusion of active blocks along large strike-slip fault zones.[Significance]The above research findings provide fundamental data and references for earthquake early warning,disaster prevention and mitigation,as well as the planning,construction,and seismic design of major regional engineering projects in the Tibetan Plateau region.
潘家伟;李海兵;刘富财;Marie-Luce Chevalier;刘栋梁;卢海建;陈鹏;杨少华
深地探测与矿产勘查全国重点实验室,北京 100094||自然资源部大陆动力学重点实验室,北京 100037||江苏东海大陆深孔地壳活动国家野外科学观测研究站,江苏 连云港 222300||中国地质科学院地质研究所,北京 100037深地探测与矿产勘查全国重点实验室,北京 100094||自然资源部大陆动力学重点实验室,北京 100037||江苏东海大陆深孔地壳活动国家野外科学观测研究站,江苏 连云港 222300||中国地质科学院地质研究所,北京 100037自然资源部大陆动力学重点实验室,北京 100037||江苏东海大陆深孔地壳活动国家野外科学观测研究站,江苏 连云港 222300||中国地质科学院地质研究所,北京 100037深地探测与矿产勘查全国重点实验室,北京 100094||自然资源部大陆动力学重点实验室,北京 100037||江苏东海大陆深孔地壳活动国家野外科学观测研究站,江苏 连云港 222300||中国地质科学院地质研究所,北京 100037自然资源部大陆动力学重点实验室,北京 100037||江苏东海大陆深孔地壳活动国家野外科学观测研究站,江苏 连云港 222300||中国地质科学院地质研究所,北京 100037深地探测与矿产勘查全国重点实验室,北京 100094||自然资源部大陆动力学重点实验室,北京 100037||江苏东海大陆深孔地壳活动国家野外科学观测研究站,江苏 连云港 222300||中国地质科学院地质研究所,北京 100037自然资源部大陆动力学重点实验室,北京 100037||江苏东海大陆深孔地壳活动国家野外科学观测研究站,江苏 连云港 222300||中国地质科学院地质研究所,北京 100037自然资源部大陆动力学重点实验室,北京 100037||江苏东海大陆深孔地壳活动国家野外科学观测研究站,江苏 连云港 222300||中国地质科学院地质研究所,北京 100037
天文与地球科学
青藏高原强震同震地表破裂同震位错活动断裂
Tibetan Plateaustrong earthquakecoseismic surface rupturecoseismic displacementactive fault
《地质力学学报》 2026 (3)
509-527,19
科技部科技基础资源调查专项(2021FY100101)国家自然科学基金项目(42372274,42325207)中国地质调查局地质调查项目(DD20240100703) This research was financially supported by Special Project on Basic Resources Investigation of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China(Grant No.2021FY100101),the National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant Nos.42372274 and 42325207),and the China Geological Survey Project of the China Geological Survey(Grant No.DD20240100703).
评论