共查询到17条相似文献，搜索用时 125 毫秒
1.
基于中国国家和四川区域数字地震台网记录,采用HypoDD方法精确定位了四川芦山ML2.0级以上地震序列的震源位置,采用CAP方法反演了36次ML4.0级以上地震的最佳双力偶震源机制解,并利用小震分布和区域应力场拟合了可能存在的发震断层面参数,从而综合分析了芦山地震序列的震源深度、震源机制和震源破裂面特征,探讨可能的发震构造.结果显示,7.0级主震的震源位置为30.30°N、102.97°E,初始破裂深度为15 km左右,震源矩心深度为14 km左右,最佳双力偶震源机制解的两组节面分别为走向209°/倾角46°/滑动角94°和走向23°/倾角44°/滑动角86°,可视为纯逆冲型地震破裂,绝大多数ML4.0级以上余震的震源机制也表现出与主震类似的逆冲破裂特征.ML2.0级以上余震序列发生在主震两侧,集中分布的长轴为30 km左右,震源深度主要集中在5～27 km,ML3.5级以上较大余震则集中分布在9～25 km的深度上,并揭示出发震断层倾向北西的特征.利用小震分布和区域应力场拟合得到发震断层参数为走向207°/倾角50°/滑动角92°,绝大多数余震发生在断层面附近10 km左右的区域.综合地震序列分布特征、主震震源深度和已有破裂过程研究结果,可以推测主震破裂过程自初始点沿断层的两侧扩展破裂,南侧破裂比北侧稍长,滑动量主要集中在初始破裂点附近,可能没有破裂到地表.综合本文研究成果、地震烈度分布和现有的科学考察结果,初步推测发震构造为龙门山山前断裂,也不排除主震震中东侧还存在一条未知的基底断裂发震的可能性. 相似文献
2.
2013年4月20日发生了四川芦山MS7.0地震,主震中位于青藏地块与华南地块结合部的龙门山断裂带南端.本研究用双差定位法对芦山地震主震及余震序列进行重新定位,得到主震位置为(30.29°N,102.97°E,17.82 km)及4100多次余震重新定位结果.利用GSN/IRIS台网和国家台网及四川省区域台网的波形数据对主震及部分余震进行了震源机制解反演.结果表明,主震为一次逆冲地震,根据余震序列分布确定发震断层面走向为200°,震源机制解断层倾角为45°.基于震源断层面解和断层滑动方向,采用力轴张量计算法得到了研究区域的平均主压应力方向约为N112°E. 相似文献
3.
2017年8月8日在青藏高原东缘四川省九寨沟县发生M7.0级强烈地震，极震区烈度达Ⅸ度，但无明显地表破裂，一定程度上限制了发震构造的确定和后续地震危险性判定.本文基于截止至2017年8月14日的地震资料，采用多阶段定位方法，对主震及余震进行了重新定位，同时，利用CAP波形反演方法，获得了M7.0主震与13次ML ≥ 4.0级余震的震源机制解和震源矩心深度，进而初步分析了本次地震的发震构造.结果显示，九寨沟M7.0地震的矩震级MW6.4，震源矩心深度5 km，表明主震发生在上地壳浅部，与2003年伊朗巴姆（Bam）MW6.5地震特征极为相似；12次ML ≥ 4.0级余震的震源矩心深度6~12 km，显示这些余震发生在主震下部，仅1次例外.重新定位后的余震震中呈NW-SE向窄带展布，位于近NS向的岷江断裂与近EW向的东昆仑断裂带东端分支塔藏断裂所夹持的区域，余震带长轴长约38 km，主震位于余震带中部.根据余震震中分布、主震及余震震源机制解等，推测本次九寨沟M7.0地震及其余震的主发震构造为位于岷江断裂与塔藏断裂之间的树正断裂.震源机制解揭示，树正断裂呈左旋走滑，走向约152°，近SE，倾向SW，倾角约70°，该断裂应属于东昆仑断裂东端的分支断裂之一，或与东南侧的虎牙断裂构成统一断裂系. 相似文献
4.
利用双差定位方法对西藏比如MS6.1地震序列141次ML≥2.0地震进行重新定位,采用CAP波形反演方法获得主震的震源机制解,并运用最小空间旋转角方法比较不同机构发布的震源机制解的差异。重新定位后主震震中位置为(31.924°N,92.824°E),靠近余震区中心,震源深度为12.8 km;余震分布沿NE向展布,长约18 km。沿NE向深度剖面结果显示,在主震右上方存在5 km×10 km的近椭圆形地震破裂空区。主震的震源机制解为正断兼走滑型,最佳矩心深度为9.3 km,矩震级为5.98。结合重新定位后余震分布、主震与历史地震震源机制解及地质构造背景等分析,认为具有左旋运动性质的安多南缘断裂可能是该次地震序列的主要发震构造。 相似文献
5.
基于云南数字地震台网和腾冲火山台网宽频带波形记录,采用CAP方法反演了2011年盈江Ms5.8地震序列主震及Ms≥4.0前震、余震的震源机制解.结果显示:主震震源深度为9 km,与该事件的定位结果相一致；震源机制解的节面之一走向248.,倾角77.,滑动角19..结合余震、烈度分布以及震区的活动构造,判定该节面代表了主震的发震断层面,相应的发震断层应是震区附近的北东向大盈江断裂.主震主压力轴方位为20.,除Ms4.7余震为正断型地震外,其他7次地震都为纯走滑型地震,都具有NNE-SSW向近水平的P轴,与该区历史地震震源机制主压应力优势方向一致.综合应力场及构造分析表明,盈江Ms5.8地震的发震动力学环境是:受印度板块向欧亚板块北东向挤压和缅甸弧对保山—腾冲地块北东向俯冲的双重作用,保山—腾冲地块呈现北东向水平运动,导致的大盈江断裂带左旋走滑错动的结果. 相似文献
6.
利用南北地震带南段密集流动地震台阵的观测数据，采用波形互相关方法拾取Pn波走时，应用滑动时窗相关法识别sPn震相，通过sPn与Pn震相之间的走时差测定了芦山地震序列中28个ML4.0级以上余震的震源深度.结果表明，震源深度集中在10~20 km范围内，垂直余震带的北西-南东向震源深度剖面揭示，余震分布表现出西深东浅的特点，倾角大约为39°.这些余震在空间上具有较好的线性分布特征，推测可能发生在与主震有关的破裂面上或邻近位置，由此推测主震的破裂面倾角大约为39°.根据余震的空间分布特征，认为芦山地震的发震断层并非双石-大川断裂，可能是其东侧的一条隐伏断层. 相似文献
7.
使用芦山地震序列2013年4月20日至5月20日一个月的地震震相数据和MS4.0以上地震的波形数据, 通过双差定位方法得到了3398个地震的精定位结果, 利用时间域全波形反演方法得到17个地震的矩张量解。 综合分析地震双差定位结果和芦山地震序列中强地震震源机制解, 发现芦山地震发震构造由主震断层和次级反冲断层组成, 主震断层为一走向北东、 倾向北西、 倾角约为45°的高角度逆冲断层, 次级反冲断层与主震断层走向相同, 倾向相反, 两条断层均未出露地表。 主震和余震震源机制解均为逆冲型, 几乎没有走滑分量。 震源区主压应力方位为北西向, 与发震断层走向近乎垂直。 相似文献
8.
利用P波、SV波、SH波初动及其振幅比联合反演震源机制解的方法，计算了2009年7月9日发生在云南姚安6.0级地震余震序列的震源机制解，同时结合地震序列的空间分布，对姚安6.0级地震的发震断层性质和震区应力场特征进行综合分析。结果分析表明：（1）姚安6.0级地震发震断层为NWW—SEE向的直立右旋走滑断层，与美国哈佛大学的主震CMT解节面基本一致，也与余震优势方向分布一致，证明结果可靠；（2）震区主压应力场优势方向为NNW—SSE向，与其现今区域构造应力场主压应力NNW—SSE向一致，表明主震应力场主要受到现今区域构造应力场的控制，同时还有一些小的余震与主震应力场不同，表明震区应力场的多样性和复杂性；（3）结合本次地震序列的空间分布、震源机制解特征、震区断裂构造特征综合分析，综合判定姚安6.0级地震的发震构造属于马尾箐断裂。 相似文献
9.
2009年云南姚安6.0级地震震源机制与发震构造的分析研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
利用P波、SV波、SH波初动及其振幅比联合反演震源机制解的方法,计算了2009年7月9日发生在云南姚安6.0级地震余震序列的震源机制解,同时结合地震序列的空间分布,对姚安6.0级地震的发震断层性质和震区应力场特征进行综合分析。结果分析表明：（1）姚安6.0级地震发震断层为NWW—SEE向的直立右旋走滑断层,与美国哈佛大学的主震CMT解节面基本一致,也与余震优势方向分布一致,证明结果可靠;（2）震区主压应力场优势方向为NNW—SSE向,与其现今区域构造应力场主压应力NNW—SSE向一致,表明主震应力场主要受到现今区域构造应力场的控制,同时还有一些小的余震与主震应力场不同,表明震区应力场的多样性和复杂性;（3）结合本次地震序列的空间分布、震源机制解特征、震区断裂构造特征综合分析,综合判定姚安6.0级地震的发震构造属于马尾箐断裂。 相似文献
10.
利用西藏地震台网记录到的2017年11月18日西藏米林6.9级地震及其余震序列资料,研究此次地震的发震机制断层。双差定位结果显示,余震沿着主震的NW和SE方向往两侧扩展分布,震源深度主要集中在2～12 km,同时从短轴剖面上地震分布推断,此次米林地震的发震断层倾角约为45°。对ML3.5以上的余震采用CAP方法进行波形拟合震源机制反演,其结果显示,此次米林地震序列震源错动类型以逆冲和走滑为主,比较符合该区域的构造动力环境。应力场反演结果显示,米林地震序列主压应力轴（S1轴）方向为NNE-NS向,主张应力轴（S3轴）方向为SEE-SE向;反映的断层错动方式为逆冲兼走滑类型。地震余震序列展布以及震源机制分布显示断层走向和断层特性与帕隆—旁辛断裂的特征较为吻合,推测米林地震的发震断裂为帕隆—旁辛断裂。 相似文献
11.
FOCAL MECHANISM AND SEISMOGENIC STRUCTURE OF THE M5.0 YUEXI EARTHQUAKE ON 1 OCT. 2014, SOUTHWESTERN CHINA 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 The Oct.1,2014 M5.0 Yuexi earthquake occurred on the Daliang Shan fault zone where only several historical moderate earthquakes were recorded.Based on the waveform data from Sichuan regional seismic network,we calculated the focal mechanism solution and centroid depth of the M5.0 Yuexi earthquake by CAP (Cut and Paste) waveform inversion method,and preliminarily analyzed the seismogenic structure.We also calculated the apparent stress values of the M5.0 earthquake and other 14 ML≥4.0 events along the Shimian-Qiaojia fault segment of the eastern boundary of the Sichuan-Yunnan block.The result indicates that the parameters of the focal mechanism solution are with a strike of 256°,dip of 62°,and slip of 167° for the nodal plane Ⅰ,and strike of 352°,dip of 79°,and slip of 29° for the nodal plane Ⅱ.The azimuth of the P axis is 121° with dip angle of 11°,the azimuth of T axis is 217° with dip angle of 28°,and the centroid depth is about 11km,and moment magnitude is MW5.1.According to the focal mechanism solution and the fault geometry near the epicenter,we infer that the seismogenic fault is a branch fault,i.e.,the Puxiong Fault,along the central segment of the Daliang Shan fault zone.Thus,the nodal plane Ⅱ was interpreted as the coseismic rupture plane.The M5.0 Yuexi earthquake is a strike-slip faulting event with an oblique component.The above findings reveal the M5.0 Yuexi earthquake resulted from the left-lateral strike-slip faulting of the NNW Dalang Shan fault zone under the nearly horizontal principal compressive stress regime in an NWW-SEE direction.The apparent stress value of the Yuexi earthquake is 0.99MPa,higher than those of the ML ≥ 4.0 earthquakes along the eastern boundary of the Sichuan-Yunnan block since 2008 Wenchuan M8.0 earthquake,implying a relatively high stress level on the seismogenic area and greater potential for the moderate and strong earthquake occurrence.It may also reflect the current increasing stress level of the entire area along the eastern boundary,and therefore,posing the risk of strong earthquakes there. 相似文献
12.
由地震纵波初动符号的资料,求得了海城地震系列中Ms≥4.0的24个地震的断层面解。主震发生于1975年2月4日,它的一个节面走向N70°W,倾向NE,倾角81°;另一个节面走向N23°E,倾向SE,倾角75°。根据余震的空间分布以及地面形变资料选取N70°W的节面为断层面,主震是发生在这个近乎直立的断层面上的左旋走向滑动,略具正的倾向滑动分量。前震及大多数余震的震源机制和主震的相似,有四个Ms≥4.0的余震的震源机制和主震的迥然不同,表现出滑动向量和主震的滑动向量相反的断层错动方式。这种情况的一种可能的解释是主震时在断层的一些地段发生错动过头。 由野外资料及余震的空间分布资料计算了主震的震源参数。主震断层长70公里,宽20公里,平均错距45厘米,地震矩2.1×1026达因·厘米,应力降4.8巴,应变降7.3×10-6。它是发生在不能积累起较高应力的薄弱地带的一次低应力降的地震。 由地震纵波初动的半周期和振幅的资料计算了81个前震和余震的震源尺度、地震矩、应力降和平均错距。结果表明前震和余震的应力降都比较低,一般在0.1-1巴之间。余震区中有两个应力降相对说来比较高（高于0.8巴）的地区,它们恰好对应于主破裂错动过头的部位。这些结果意味着震前高应力、错动过头、相对高应力降和震源机制反向四者之间 相似文献
13.
Based on the digital waveforms of Xinjiang Seismic Network, the Hutubi MS6.2 earthquake sequence (ML ≥ 1.0) was relocated precisely by HypoDD.The best double-couple focal mechanisms of the main shock and aftershocks of ML ≥ 4.0 were determined by the CAP method. We analyzed the characteristics of spatial distribution, focal mechanisms and the seismogenic structure of earthquake sequence. The results show that the main shock is located at 43.775 9°N, 86.363 4°E; the depth of the initial rupture and centriod is about 15.388km and 17km. The earthquake sequence extends unilaterally along NWW direction with an extension length of about 15km and a depth ranging 5~15km. The characteristics of the depth profiles show that the seismogenic fault plane dips northward and the faulting is dominated by thrusting. The nodal planes parameters of the best double-couple focal mechanisms are:strike 292°, dip 62° and rake 80° for nodal plane I, and strike 132°, dip 30° and rake 108° for nodal plane Ⅱ, indicating that the main shock is of thrust faulting. The dip of nodal planeⅠis consistent with the dip of the depth profile, which is inferred to be the fault plane of seismogenic fault of this earthquake. According to the comprehensive analysis of the relocation results, the focal mechanism and geological structure in the source region, it is preliminarily inferred that the seismogenic structure of the Hutubi MS6.2 earthquake may be a backthrust on the deeper concealed thrust slope at the south of Qigu anticline. The earthquake is a "folding" earthquake taking place under the stress field of Tianshan expanding towards the Junggar Basin. 相似文献
14.
利用8个流动数字地震台和国家数字地震台站的地震波形记录,测量了2003年4月17日青海德令哈6.7级地震及其主要余震的直达P波、SV波、SH波的初动方向和振幅比,应用Snoke(2003)的测定震源机制解的格点尝试法,测定出德令哈地震序列的48个2.4级以上地震的震源机制解.搜集分析了美国哈佛大学测定的德令哈6.7级主震和2004年二期地震活动中的7个地震的震源机制解.基于余震空间分布特征和对震源机制解特征的分析,讨论了德令哈地震序列的可能断层活动方式和地震的构造含义.结果表明,主震和大部分余震都是沿NWW-SEE走向的逆断层错动,北边的上盘可能沿低角度向北倾的断层面向南仰冲;个别正断层余震可能是震源区挤压变形弧顶区附近发生的局部张性破裂;在二期地震活动中,逆断层和走滑断层都有,走滑断层地震主要发生在震源区东侧.德令哈地震活动是青藏高原东北缘NWW-SEE向延伸的挤压带继续处于隆升活动中的表现,这一继承性新构造运动是德令哈地震序列的可能发震原因. 相似文献
15.
2014年11月22日在NW向鲜水河断裂带中南段四川康定县发生M6.3级地震,11月25日在该地震震中东南约10km处再次发生M5.8级地震.基于中国国家数字地震台网和四川区域数字地震台网资料,采用多阶段定位方法对本次康定M6.3级地震序列进行了重新定位;利用gCAP(generalized Cut And Paste)矩张量反演方法获得了M6.3和M5.8级地震的震源机制解与矩心深度,分析了本次地震序列的发震构造,并结合历史强震破裂时空分布和2001年以来小震重新定位结果,对鲜水河断裂带中段强震危险性进行了初步探讨.获得的主要结果如下:(1)M6.3级主震震中位于101.69°E、30.27°N,震源初始破裂深度约10km,矩心深度9km;M5.8级地震震中位于101.73°E、30.18°N,初始破裂深度约11km,矩心深度9km.gCAP矩张量反演结果揭示这两次地震双力偶分量占主导,M6.3级地震的最佳双力偶解节面Ⅰ走向143°/倾角82°/滑动角-9°,节面Ⅱ走向234°/倾角81°/滑动角-172°.M5.8级地震最佳双力偶解节面Ⅰ走向151°/倾角83°/滑动角-6°,节面Ⅱ走向242°/倾角84°/滑动角-173°.依据余震分布长轴展布与断裂走向,判定节面Ⅰ为发震断层面,M6.3和M5.8级地震均为带有微小正断分量的左旋走滑型地震.(2)序列中重新定位的459个地震平均震源深度约9km,地震主要集中分布在6~11km深度区间,余震基本发生在M6.3和M5.8级地震震源上部.依据余震密集区展布范围,推测本次康定地震的震源体尺度长约30km、宽约4km、深度范围约6km.M6.3级主震震源附近的余震稀疏区可能是一个较大的凹凸体(asperity),在主震中能量得以充分释放.(3)最初3天的余震主要分布在M6.3级地震NW侧;而M5.8级地震之后的余震主要集中在其震中附近.M6.3级地震以及最初3天的绝大部分余震发生在倾角约82°近直立的NW走向色拉哈断裂上;M5.8级地震与其后的多数余震发生在倾角约83°近直立的NW走向折多塘断裂北端走向向北偏转部位,M5.8级地震可能是M6.3级地震触发相邻的折多塘断裂活动所致.(4)康定M6.3与M5.8级地震发生在鲜水河断裂带乾宁与康定之间的色拉哈强震破裂空段,本次地震破裂尺度较小,尚不足以填补该强震空段.色拉哈段以及相邻的乾宁段7级地震平静时间均已超过其平均复发周期估值,未来几年存在发生7级地震的危险.康定M6.3级地震序列基本填补了震前存在于塔公与康定之间的深部小震空区,未来强震发生在塔公至松林口段深部小震稀疏区内的可能性很大. 相似文献
16.
On 16th September 2013, an M5.1 earthquake occurred in Badong County, Hubei Province, which is the biggest one since the first water impounding in 2003 in the head region of the Three Gorges Reservoir area. The crustal velocity information is needed to determine the earthquake location and focal mechanism. By comparison, the 1-D velocity structure model from Zhao was adopted in this study. Double difference location method was applied to determine the precise locations of the M5.1 earthquake sequence. Relocation results show that the dominant distribution of this sequence is along NEE direction. In order to understand its seismogenic structure, focal depth profiles were made. Profile AA' was along the sequence distribution, and the earthquake sequence extended about 12km. Focal depth of mainshock is deeper than that of aftershocks, and earthquake rupture propagated laterally southwestward. The seismic profile BB' and CC' were perpendicular to profile AA', which represent the dip direction. Both profiles show that the focal depth becomes deeper toward southeast, and dip angle is about 50°. It means that the possible seismogenic fault strikes NEE and dips southeast. Focal mechanism could provide more information for judging the seismogenic structures. Many methods could obtain the focal mechanism, such as P-wave first motion method, CAP method, and some other moment tensor methods. In this paper, moment tensor inversion program made by Yagi Y is adopted. 12 regional seismic stations ranging from 100~400km are picked up, and before the inversion, we removed the mean and trend. The seismic waveforms were band pass filtered between 0.05 and 0.2Hz, and then integrated into displacement. Green's functions were calculated using the discrete wavenumber method developed by Kohketsu. The focal mechanism of the M5.1 mainshock manifests that the NEE-striking fault plane probably is the possible seismogenic fault, which is consistent with the analysis of focal depth profiles. The focal mechanisms of the ML≥2.0 aftershocks are retrieved by P-wave first motion method, and the nodal plane I is in accordance with the earthquake sequence distribution and the fault plane of the mainshock. FMSI program was adopted to inverse the stress field in the earthquake area, and the results show that the earthquake sequence is under the control of the regional stress field. The earthquake sequence occurred on the stage of slow water unloading, and ETAS model was introduced to testify the influences of water level fluctuations on earthquakes. The results denote that the reservoir played a triggering role in the earthquake, however, the NEE-striking seismogenic fault is the controlling factor. 相似文献
17.
THE SOURCE PARAMETERS AND SEISMOTECTONIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2017 ML4.4 LINCHENG EARTHQUAKE 下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 LI He XIE Zu-jun WANG Yi-xi WANG Xiao-shan DONG Yi-bing ZHANG Hui PENG Zhao LIU Wen-bing GAO Ye WANG Li-xia 《地震地质》2019,41(3):670-689
At 3:05, September 4, 2017, an ML4.4 earthquake occurred in Lincheng County, Xingtai City, Hebei Province, which was felt obviously by surrounding areas. Approximately 60km away from the hypocenter of Xingtai MS7.2 earthquake in 1966, this event is the most noticeable earthquake in this area in recent years. On the one hand, people are still shocked by the 1966 Xingtai earthquake that caused huge disaster, on the other hand, Lincheng County is lack of strong earthquakes. Therefore, this quake has aroused widespread concerns by the government, society and seismologists. It is necessary to clarify whether the seismogenic structure of this event is consistent with the previous seismicity and whether it has any new implications for the seismic activity and seismic hazard in this region. Therefore, it is of great significance to study its seismogenic mechanism for understanding the earthquake activity in Xingtai region where a MS7.2 earthquake had occurred in 1966.
In this study, the Lincheng earthquake and its aftershocks are relocated using the multi-step locating method, and the focal mechanism and focal depth are determined by the "generalized Cut and Paste"(gCAP)method. The reliability of the results is analyzed based on the data of Hebei regional seismic network. In order to better constrain the focal depth, the depth phase sPL fitting method is applied to the relocation of focal depth. The inversion and constraint results show that aftershocks are mainly distributed along NE direction and dip to SE direction as revealed by depth profiles. Focal depths of aftershocks are concentrated in the depths of 6.5~8.2km with an average of about 7km. The best double-couple solution of the mainshock is 276°, 69° and -40° for strike, dip and slip angle for nodal plane I and 23°, 53° and -153° for nodal plane Ⅱ, respectively, revealing that it is a strike-slip event with a small amount of normal-fault component. The initial rupture depth of mainshock is about 7.5km obtained by the relocation while the centroid depth is 6km derived from gCAP method which was also verified by the seismic depth phase sPL observed by several stations, indicating the earthquake is ruptured from deep to shallow. Combined with the research results on regional geological structure and the seismic sequence relocation results, it is concluded that the nodal plane Ⅱ is the seismogenic fault plane of this earthquake.
There are several active faults around the hypocenter of Lincheng earthquake sequence, however, none of the known faults on the current understanding is completely consistent with the seismogenic fault. To determine the seismogenic mechanism, the lucubrated research of the MS7.2 Xingtai earthquake in 1966 could provide a powerful reference. The seismic tectonic characteristics of the 1966 Xingtai earthquake sequence could be summarized as follows:There are tensional fault in the shallow crust and steep dip hidden fault in the middle and lower crust, however, the two faults are not connected but separated by the shear slip surfaces which are widely distributed in the middle crust; the seismic source is located between the hidden fault in the lower crust and the extensional fault in the upper crust; the earthquake began to rupture in the deep dip fault in the mid-lower crust and then ruptured upward to the extensional fault in the shallow crust, and the two fault systems were broken successively. From the earthquake rupture revealed by the seismic sequence location, the Lincheng earthquake also has the semblable feature of rupturing from deep to shallow. However, due to the much smaller magnitude of this event than that of the 1966 earthquake, the accumulated stress was not high enough to tear the fracture of the detachment surface whose existence in Lincheng region was confirmed clearly by the results of Lincheng-Julu deep reflection seismology and reach to the shallower fault. Therefore, by the revelation of the seismogenic mechanism of the 1966 Xingtai earthquake, the seismogenic fault of Lincheng earthquake is presumed to be a concealed fault possessing a potential of both strike-slip and small normal faulting component and located below the detachment surface in Lincheng area. The tectonic significance indicated by this earthquake is that the event was a stress adjustment of the deep fault and did not lead to the rupture of the shallow fault. Therefore, this area still has potential seismic hazard to a certain extent. 相似文献