• 中国出版政府奖提名奖

    中国百强科技报刊

    湖北出版政府奖

    中国高校百佳科技期刊

    中国最美期刊

    留言板

    尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

    姓名
    邮箱
    手机号码
    标题
    留言内容
    验证码

    2018年帕卢MW7.6地震震源及苏拉威西地区构造应力场特征

    崔华伟 万永革 王晓山 黄骥超 靳志同

    崔华伟, 万永革, 王晓山, 黄骥超, 靳志同, 2021. 2018年帕卢MW7.6地震震源及苏拉威西地区构造应力场特征. 地球科学, 46(7): 2657-2674. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2020.243
    引用本文: 崔华伟, 万永革, 王晓山, 黄骥超, 靳志同, 2021. 2018年帕卢MW7.6地震震源及苏拉威西地区构造应力场特征. 地球科学, 46(7): 2657-2674. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2020.243
    Cui Huawei, Wan Yongge, Wang Xiaoshan, Huang Jichao, Jin Zhitong, 2021. Characteristic of Tectonic Stress Field in Source Region of 2018 MW7.6 Palu Earthquake and Sulawesi Area. Earth Science, 46(7): 2657-2674. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2020.243
    Citation: Cui Huawei, Wan Yongge, Wang Xiaoshan, Huang Jichao, Jin Zhitong, 2021. Characteristic of Tectonic Stress Field in Source Region of 2018 MW7.6 Palu Earthquake and Sulawesi Area. Earth Science, 46(7): 2657-2674. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2020.243

    2018年帕卢MW7.6地震震源及苏拉威西地区构造应力场特征

    doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2020.243
    基金项目: 

    山东省“地震灾害风险评估与应急服务”科技创新团队、河北省地震动力学重点实验室开放基金资助项目 FZ202205

    河北地震科技星火计划项目 DZ20190415002

    中国地震科学实验场的地震可预测性国际合作研究项目 2018YFE0109700

    山东省地震局青年基金项目 JJ1807Y

    详细信息
      作者简介:

      崔华伟(1990-), 男, 硕士, 主要从事震源机制解和构造应力场研究.ORCID: 0000-0002-8754-7177.E-mail: cuihuawei19900920@163.com

      通讯作者:

      万永革, ORCID: 0000-0002-6363-0267.E-mail: wanyg217217@vip.sina.com

    • 中图分类号: P315

    Characteristic of Tectonic Stress Field in Source Region of 2018 MW7.6 Palu Earthquake and Sulawesi Area

    • 摘要: 为分析帕卢地震的发震构造及构造应力场特征,基于1976年1月至2018年4月全球CMT目录的震源机制解,反演了2018年9月28日印度尼西亚帕卢地震震源区及苏拉威西地区构造应力场,得到以下初步认识:赤道0°两侧南、北区域的应力场呈现出整体的一致性和局部的不均匀性,北部是以向北倾伏的低倾伏角挤压和向南倾伏的高倾伏角拉张作用为主;南部是近水平的NNW-EW向挤压及低倾伏角的近N-S向拉张的应力状态.摆堆易逆冲推挤及西里伯斯海阻挡导致北部地区的应力场显示俯冲带的特征,也导致北苏拉和马纳都块体的应力场出现差异性.在班达海自东向西的挤压及西部马卡萨盆地的阻挡作用下,南部地区呈现出近E-W向的挤压状态,并沿着NNE-SSW向呈现出地壳物质的构造逃逸现象.深部地幔物质上涌致使苏拉威西中部的R值偏小,形成活火山.受到桑吉双俯冲带和麦纳哈撒海沟的推挤及火山喷发作用,东部交汇区的应力场呈较大倾伏角的拉张为主及R值复杂突变.西部交汇地区的应力场是走滑为主兼有正断应力机制,该应力场有益于此次地震的触发及超剪切波破裂现象的出现.

       

    • 图  1  帕卢地震震源区构造

      图中断裂带和海沟数据来源于Socquet et al.(2006);火山数据来源于Advokaat et al.(2017)

      Fig.  1.  Tectonic in Palu and its adjacent area

      图  2  帕卢地震周边震源机制解分布及剖面位置

      图中,红、黑、蓝和绿色分别代表逆冲、走滑、正断和过渡型地震;3条南北向彩色实线分别代表剖面AA’、BB’和CC’的位置

      Fig.  2.  Distribution of focal mechanism solution and the location of profiles in Palu area

      图  3  震源机制解剖面

      3个剖面的位置见图 2;震源机制的颜色规定同图 2

      Fig.  3.  Profiles of the focal mechanism solution

      图  4  模型长度和数据残差折衷曲线

      图中的黑色十字表示最优阻尼系数

      Fig.  4.  Trade-off curve of model length and data misfit

      图  5  帕卢地震及周边区域构造应力场压/张应力轴分布

      灰色横向实线为南北区域分界线;西部红色椭圆形和东部黄色图形为应力场不均匀性区域

      Fig.  5.  Compressive/extensional axis of tectonic stress field in Palu earthquake and its adjacent area

      图  6  帕卢地震震源区应力场的沙滩球示意图

      根据Zoback(1992)划分标准绘制红色、黑色、蓝色及绿色应力机制沙滩球

      Fig.  6.  Distribution of beach-ball map about stress field in source region of the Palu earthquake

      图  7  苏拉威西地区地球动力学示意图

      本示意图修改自Walpersdorf et al.(1998a)Hall and Spakman(2015);图中的应力辐射花样红色部分表示压应力轴,蓝色代表张应力轴

      Fig.  7.  Sketch map of geodynamic model in Sulawei

      表  1  应力场参数

      Table  1.   Parameters of stress field

      经度E(°) 纬度N(°) 压应力轴 中间轴 张应力轴 R 应力机制类型
      方位角(°) 倾伏角(°) 方位角(°) 倾伏角(°) 方位角(°) 倾伏角(°)
      118.25 -3.25 -69.19 12.08 34.45 47.78 -169.42 39.68 0.64 走滑型
      118.25 2.75 38.77 28.49 -54.39 5.80 -154.87 60.82 0.32 逆冲型
      118.75 -2.75 -80.26 17.06 46.73 62.98 -176.77 20.30 0.78 走滑型
      118.75 1.25 -7.27 37.93 83.71 1.25 175.31 52.04 0.38 过渡型
      119.25 -3.75 -85.39 9.14 94.29 80.86 -175.39 0.05 0.94 走滑型
      119.25 -2.25 -84.45 19.08 92.23 70.89 -174.80 1.03 0.58 走滑型
      119.25 -1.25 -77.97 23.40 70.84 63.16 -173.43 12.39 0.61 走滑型
      119.25 1.75 9.25 37.10 -89.27 11.09 166.87 50.72 0.50 过渡型
      119.75 -3.75 -88.93 8.72 102.86 81.10 1.34 1.79 0.81 走滑型
      119.75 -2.75 -97.33 23.60 80.50 66.39 172.33 0.80 0.47 走滑型
      119.75 -2.25 -86.82 21.68 89.79 68.28 -177.28 1.17 0.49 走滑型
      119.75 -1.25 -70.31 20.93 101.23 68.85 -161.40 2.84 0.56 走滑型
      119.75 -0.75 -66.55 26.47 103.13 63.16 -158.62 4.15 0.52 走滑型
      119.75 -0.25 -63.07 19.41 75.90 64.96 -158.56 15.20 0.71 走滑型
      119.75 0.25 -51.13 30.24 43.91 8.57 148.05 58.32 0.60 逆冲型
      119.75 0.75 -23.76 41.24 70.22 4.53 165.35 48.40 0.64 过渡型
      119.75 1.25 -14.38 35.27 -108.86 6.30 152.40 54.00 0.50 过渡型
      120.25 -2.25 -86.36 17.25 93.63 72.75 -176.36 0.01 0.44 走滑型
      120.25 -1.75 -80.23 17.44 110.94 72.25 10.79 3.23 0.42 走滑型
      120.25 -1.25 -73.06 6.02 138.71 82.93 17.33 3.69 0.23 走滑型
      120.25 -0.75 -67.89 21.95 119.95 67.86 23.22 2.73 0.32 走滑型
      120.25 -0.25 -68.62 12.44 48.49 64.16 -163.80 22.26 0.72 走滑型
      120.25 0.25 -51.69 38.06 53.09 18.05 163.08 46.38 0.44 过渡型
      120.25 0.75 -23.91 47.29 72.98 6.32 168.70 42.01 0.55 过渡型
      120.25 1.25 -6.47 39.87 -101.02 5.42 162.57 49.61 0.46 过渡型
      120.25 1.75 -2.58 33.30 -96.36 5.73 165.05 56.08 0.46 逆冲型
      120.75 -2.25 -87.33 6.43 112.14 83.18 2.92 2.26 0.41 走滑型
      120.75 -1.75 -83.72 5.82 143.58 81.45 6.92 6.24 0.38 走滑型
      120.75 -1.25 102.33 2.99 -150.03 80.23 11.84 9.30 0.28 走滑型
      120.75 -0.75 112.04 14.79 -91.78 73.90 20.39 6.22 0.04 走滑型
      120.75 0.25 -55.21 37.28 64.07 32.72 -178.41 35.73 0.42 过渡型
      120.75 0.75 -4.09 58.66 -98.87 2.91 169.37 31.18 0.60 正断型
      120.75 1.25 -2.10 44.50 -100.34 8.29 161.48 44.31 0.54 过渡型
      120.75 1.75 4.52 31.24 -90.50 8.20 166.45 57.46 0.53 逆冲型
      120.75 2.25 4.36 28.51 -86.49 1.56 -179.35 61.44 0.60 逆冲型
      121.25 -2.75 88.08 8.39 -78.76 81.39 178.37 1.93 0.34 走滑型
      121.25 -2.25 -89.24 2.77 66.12 86.96 -179.30 1.27 0.35 走滑型
      121.25 -1.25 100.98 4.29 -132.88 82.74 10.54 5.84 0.55 走滑型
      121.25 -0.75 105.30 14.05 -72.77 75.94 -164.59 0.46 0.15 走滑型
      121.25 -0.25 105.49 2.01 -27.10 87.04 -164.43 2.18 0.26 走滑型
      121.25 1.25 7.82 50.65 -109.24 20.45 147.31 31.94 0.74 过渡型
      121.25 1.75 9.85 32.99 -87.43 11.05 166.54 54.74 0.67 逆冲型
      121.75 -3.75 86.23 20.70 -120.32 67.10 -7.34 9.36 0.48 走滑型
      121.75 -2.75 85.04 13.16 -134.13 73.22 -7.38 10.23 0.57 走滑型
      121.75 -2.25 87.51 12.26 -131.16 74.45 -4.56 9.42 0.46 走滑型
      121.75 -1.75 92.77 8.27 -129.71 78.86 1.69 7.42 0.39 走滑型
      121.75 -1.25 102.69 16.69 -107.64 70.84 9.93 9.13 0.32 走滑型
      121.75 -0.75 106.85 38.59 -71.44 51.40 -162.48 0.83 0.10 走滑型
      121.75 -0.25 105.67 45.52 -68.59 44.34 -161.40 2.87 0.42 过渡型
      121.75 1.25 2.91 51.47 -143.48 33.55 115.05 16.70 0.72 过渡型
      121.75 1.75 8.24 29.29 -89.40 13.33 158.97 57.26 0.72 逆冲型
      121.75 2.25 11.35 20.87 -81.75 8.06 168.26 67.48 0.67 逆冲型
      122.25 -2.75 83.80 17.00 -141.26 66.59 -11.10 15.60 0.66 走滑型
      122.25 -1.75 95.30 15.90 -113.29 72.03 2.95 8.16 0.52 走滑型
      122.25 -0.75 110.71 30.08 -65.26 59.86 -158.27 1.75 0.38 走滑型
      122.25 0.75 -13.48 35.56 93.81 22.57 -150.87 45.83 0.35 过渡型
      122.25 1.25 1.82 31.20 94.25 4.01 -169.17 58.48 0.60 逆冲型
      122.25 1.75 4.41 23.99 -86.47 1.98 179.09 65.92 0.60 逆冲型
      122.25 2.25 5.67 16.22 -88.05 12.56 145.90 69.27 0.56 逆冲型
      122.75 -2.75 84.26 18.23 -138.62 65.80 -10.93 15.36 0.59 走滑型
      122.75 -1.75 94.76 17.51 -104.88 71.48 2.91 5.84 0.62 走滑型
      122.75 -0.75 111.66 23.74 -46.65 64.68 -154.66 8.32 0.56 走滑型
      122.75 -0.25 113.43 14.85 -26.38 70.87 -153.39 11.80 0.61 走滑型
      122.75 0.75 12.80 31.06 103.37 0.95 -165.04 58.92 0.37 逆冲型
      122.75 1.25 -9.80 27.70 84.16 7.50 -172.04 61.13 0.49 逆冲型
      122.75 1.75 -0.08 22.12 94.34 10.73 -151.50 65.16 0.59 逆冲型
      123.25 -3.75 84.84 37.87 -105.45 51.68 -9.07 5.02 0.45 走滑型
      123.25 -3.25 85.26 43.55 -103.27 46.13 -8.81 4.27 0.44 过渡型
      123.25 -1.25 99.13 14.96 -23.54 63.67 -164.94 21.14 0.72 走滑型
      123.25 -0.75 109.25 17.18 3.27 41.69 -143.81 43.31 0.59 逆冲型
      123.25 -0.25 114.20 7.81 -153.80 14.27 -3.69 73.65 0.88 逆冲型
      123.25 1.25 -4.45 17.38 86.30 2.39 -176.11 72.45 0.35 逆冲型
      123.25 1.75 -6.63 19.77 88.56 14.13 -148.18 65.35 0.43 逆冲型
      123.75 -3.75 84.25 32.52 -119.61 55.12 -13.03 11.25 0.66 走滑型
      123.75 -3.25 83.72 36.52 -110.80 52.58 -11.52 7.03 0.56 走滑型
      123.75 -1.25 98.53 14.17 -11.81 54.00 -162.28 32.30 0.83 走滑型
      123.75 -0.75 108.37 15.95 8.62 30.65 -137.91 54.62 0.86 逆冲型
      123.75 -0.25 113.75 19.65 22.96 2.22 -73.23 70.22 0.77 逆冲型
      123.75 0.25 100.64 25.43 10.60 0.09 -79.60 64.57 0.57 逆冲型
      123.75 1.25 21.31 9.73 -68.93 1.39 -166.96 80.17 0.23 逆冲型
      123.75 1.75 6.83 18.09 99.04 6.72 -151.38 70.62 0.37 逆冲型
      123.75 2.25 1.75 19.05 94.17 6.98 -156.58 69.62 0.41 逆冲型
      124.25 -3.75 81.48 25.53 -147.56 53.92 -20.60 23.66 0.79 过渡型
      124.25 -1.75 91.37 12.81 -62.38 75.77 -177.24 6.09 0.73 走滑型
      124.25 -1.25 94.76 12.95 -9.33 46.63 -163.93 40.48 0.98 逆冲型
      124.25 -0.75 105.57 19.56 -158.98 14.95 -34.04 65.00 0.72 逆冲型
      124.25 -0.25 128.09 31.83 -137.73 6.70 -37.19 57.31 0.65 逆冲型
      124.25 0.25 119.13 28.45 -148.44 4.47 -50.28 61.14 0.17 逆冲型
      124.25 0.75 165.73 14.20 73.71 7.92 -44.60 73.66 0.26 逆冲型
      124.25 1.25 25.33 1.38 115.36 1.24 -112.59 88.15 0.14 逆冲型
      124.75 -1.75 92.35 8.64 -41.65 77.67 -176.32 8.74 0.76 走滑型
      124.75 -1.25 90.53 9.88 -176.11 18.62 -26.06 68.74 0.90 逆冲型
      124.75 -0.75 98.16 15.12 -166.14 20.20 -26.09 64.36 0.52 逆冲型
      124.75 -0.25 119.63 24.00 -147.47 6.48 -43.35 65.03 0.39 逆冲型
      124.75 0.25 46.00 7.26 140.21 29.95 -56.25 59.00 0.12 逆冲型
      124.75 0.75 -159.10 0.02 110.89 14.94 -69.01 75.06 0.20 逆冲型
      下载: 导出CSV
    • Advokaat, E. L., Hall, R., White, L. T., et al., 2017. Miocene to Recent Extension in NW Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 147(2): 378-401. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2017.07.023
      Andrews, D. J., 1976. Rupture Velocity of Plane Strain Shear Cracks. Journal of Geophysical Research, 81(32): 5679-5687. DOI: 10.1029/jb081i032p05679
      Bao, H., Ampuero, J. P., Meng, L. S., et al., 2019. Early and Persistent Supershear Rupture of the 2018 Magnitude 7.5 Palu Earthquake. Nature Geoscience, 12(3): 200-205. DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0297-z
      Beaudouin, T., 1998. Tectonique Active et Sismotectonique du Systeme de Failles Decrochantes de Sulawesi Central (Indonesie) (Dissertation). University Paris-Sud, Paris, 343.
      Beaudouin, T., Bellier, O., Sebrier, M., 2003. Present-Day Stress and Deformation Field within the Sulawesi Island Area (Indonesia) : Geodynamic Implications. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 174(3): 305-317. DOI: 10.2113/174.3.305
      Bellier, O., Sebrier, M., Beaudouin, T., et al., 2001. High Slip Rate for a Low Seismicity along the Palu-Koro Active Fault in Central Sulawesi (Indonesia). Terra Nova, 13(6): 463-470. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3121.2001.00382.x
      Bellier, O., Sébrier, M., Seward, D., et al., 2006. Fission Track and Fault Kinematics Analyses for New Insight into the Late Cenozoic Tectonic Regime Changes in West-Central Sulawesi (Indonesia). Tectonophysics, 413(3/4): 201-220. DOI: 10.1016/j.tecto.2005.10.036
      Bergman, S. C., Coffield, D. Q., Talbot, J. P., et al., 1996. Tertiary Tectonic and Magmatic Evolution of Western Sulawesi and the Makassar Strait, Indonesia: Evidence for a Miocene Continent-Continent Collision. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 106(1): 391-429. DOI: 10.1144/gsl.sp.1996.106.01.25
      Bird, P., 2003. An Updated Digital Model of Plate Boundaries. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 4(3): 1-52. DOI: 10.1029/2001gc000252
      Burridge, R., 1973. Admissible Speeds for Plane-Strain Self-Similar Shear Cracks with Friction but Lacking Cohesion. Geophysical Journal International, 35(4): 439-455. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1973.tb00608.x
      Burke, K., Sengör, C., 1986. Tectonic Escape in the Evolution of the Continental Crust. Reflection Seismology: The Continental Crust, 14: 41-53. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986GMS....14...41B
      Cui, H. W., Wan, Y. G., Huang, J. C., et al., 2017. The Tectonic Stress Field in the Source of the New Britain Ms 7.4 Earthquake of March 2015 and Adjacent Areas. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 60(3): 985-998(in Chinese with English abstract). http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-DQWX201703014.htm
      Cui, H. W., Wan, Y. G., Huang, J. C., et al., 2019. Inversion for the Tectonic Stress Field and the Characteristic of the Stress Shape Factor of the Detachment Slab in the Pamir-Hindu Kush Area. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(5): 1633-1649(in Chinese with English abstract). http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-DQWX201905006.htm
      Daly, M. C., Cooper, M. A., Wilson, I., et al., 1991. Cenozoic Plate Tectonics and Basin Evolution in Indonesia. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 8(1): 2-21. DOI: 10.1016/0264-8172(91)90041-x
      DeMets, C., Gordon, R. G., Argus, D. F., et al., 1990. Current Plate Motions. Geophysical Journal International, 101(2): 425-478. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1990.tb06579.x
      DeMets, C., Gordon, R. G., Argus, D. F., et al., 1994. Effect of Recent Revisions to the Geomagnetic Reversal Time Scale on Estimates of Current Plate Motions. Geophysical Research Letters, 21(20): 2191-2194. DOI: 10.1029/94gl02118
      Dziewonski, A. M., Chou, T. A., Woodhouse, J. H., 1981. Determination of Earthquake Source Parameters from Waveform Data for Studies of Global and Regional Seismicity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 86(B4): 2825-2852. DOI: 10.1029/jb086ib04p02825
      Ekström, G., Nettles, M., Dziewoński, A. M., 2012. The Global CMT Project 2004-2010: Centroid-Moment Tensors for 13, 017 Earthquakes. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 200-201: 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pepi.2012.04.002
      Fang, J., Xu, C. J., Wen, Y. M., et al., 2019. The 2018 Mw 7.5 Palu Earthquake: A Supershear Rupture Event Constrained by InSAR and Broadband Regional Seismograms. Remote Sensing, 11(11): 1330. DOI: 10.3390/rs11111330
      Gao, X. W., Wan, Y. G., Huang, J. C., et al., 2015. Tectonic Stress Field Analysis and Static Coulomb Stress Changes of the Ms5.8 Inner Mongolias' Alxa Left Banner Earthquake. North China Earthquake Sciences, 33(2): 48-54(in Chinese with English abstract). http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-HDKD201502010.htm
      Gephart, J. W., Forsyth, D. W., 1984. An Improved Method for Determining the Regional Stress Tensor Using Earthquake Focal Mechanism Data: Application to the San Fernando Earthquake Sequence. Journal of Geophysical Research, 89(B11): 9305. DOI: 10.1029/jb089ib11p09305
      Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT)Catalog. Available Online: https://www.globalcmt.org/CMTsearch.html
      Guiraud, M., Laborde, O., Philip, H., 1989. Characterization of Various Types of Deformation and Their Corresponding Deviatoric Stress Tensors Using Microfault Analysis. Tectonophysics, 170(3/4): 289-316. DOI: 10.1016/0040-1951(89)90277-1
      Hafkenscheid, E., Buiter, S. J. H., Wortel, M. J. R., et al., 2001. Modelling the Seismic Velocity Structure beneath Indonesia: A Comparison with Tomography. Tectonophysics, 333(1/2): 35-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0040-1951(00)00265-1
      Hall, R., 2002. Cenozoic Geological and Plate Tectonic Evolution of SE Asia and the SW Pacific: Computer-Based Reconstructions, Model and Animations. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 20(4): 353-431. DOI: 10.1016/s1367-9120(01)00069-4
      Hall, R., Spakman, W., 2015. Mantle Structure and Tectonic History of SE Asia. Tectonophysics, 658(6625): 14-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.tecto.2015.07.003
      Hamilton, W. B., 1979. Tectonics of the Indonesian Region. United States Government Office, Washington.
      Hardebeck, J. L., Michael, A. J., 2006. Damped Regional-Scale Stress Inversions: Methodology and Examples for Southern California and the Coalinga Aftershock Sequence. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B11): 1-11. DOI: 10.1029/2005jb004144
      Hardebeck, J. L., 2015. Stress Orientations in Subduction Zones and the Strength of Subduction Megathrust Faults. Science, 349(6253): 1213-1216. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac5625
      Huang, J. C., Wan, Y. G., Sheng, S. Z., et al., 2016. Heterogeneity of Present Days Stress Field in the Tonga Kermadec Subduction Zone and its Geodynamic Significance. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 59(2): 578-592(in Chinese with English abstract). http://www.researchgate.net/publication/294521177_Heterogeneity_of_present-day_stress_field_in_the_Tonga-Kermadec_subduction_zone_and_its_geodynamic_significance_in_Chinese_with_English_abstract
      Hui, G. G., Li, S. Z., Wang, P. C., et al., 2018. Linkage between Reactivation of the Sinistral Strike-Slip Faults and 28 September 2018 Mw7.5 Palu Earthquake, Indonesia. Science Bulletin, 63(24): 1635-1640. DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2018.11.021
      Hutchison, C. S., 1989. Geological Evolution of South-East Asia. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
      Jaya, A., Nishikawa, O., 2013. Paleostress Reconstruction from Calcite Twin and Fault-Slip Data Using the Multiple Inverse Method in the East Walanae Fault Zone: Implications for the Neogene Contraction in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Structural Geology, 55(3-5): 34-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2013.07.006
      Kadarusman, A., van Leeuwen, T., Sopaheluwakan, J., 2011. Eclogite, Peridotite, Granulite and Associated High-Grade Rocks from the Palu Region, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia: An Example of Mantle and Crust Interaction in a Young Orogenic Belt. Proc. Joint 36th HAGI and 40th IAGI Ann. Conv., Makassar, 10.
      Katili, J. A., 1970. Large Transcurrent Faults in Southeast Asia with Special Reference to Indonesia. Geologische Rundschau, 59(2): 581-600. DOI: 10.1007/bf01823809
      Kopp, C., Flueh, E. R., Neben, S., 1999. Rupture and Accretion of the Celebes Sea Crustrelated to the North-Sulawesi Subduction: Combinedinterpretation of Reflection and Refraction Seismicmeasurements. Journal of Geodynamics, 27(3): 309-325. DOI: 10.1016/s0264-3707(98)00004-0
      Li, F. C., Sun, Z., Zhang. J.Y., 2018. Numerical Studieson Continental Lithospheric Breakup in Response to The Extension Induced by Subduction Direction Inversion. Earth Science, 43(10): 3762-3777(in Chinese with English abstract).
      Li, H., Tang, Y., Ding, W. W., et al., 2018. Gravity Inversion on Crust Structures of the Shikoku Basin, Philippine Sea, and Its Implication to the Evolution Process. Earth Science, 43(3): 862-872(in Chinese with English abstract). http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-DQKX201803018.htm
      Li, Q., Tan, K., Zhao, B., et al., 2019. The 2018 MW 7.5 Palu, Indonesia Earthquake: A Supershear Rupturing Event. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(8): 3017-3023(in Chinese with English abstract). http://www.researchgate.net/publication/335005023_LiQi-2019-The_2018_Mw75_Palu_Indonesia_earthquake-a_supershear_rupturing_event
      Li, T. J., Chen, Q. F., 2019. Stress Regime Inversion in the Northwest Pacific Subduction Zone, the Segment from Northern Honshu, Japan to Northeast China. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(2): 520-533(in Chinese with English abstract). http://www.researchgate.net/publication/339497561_Stress_regime_inversion_in_the_Northwest_Pacific_subduction_zone_the_segment_from_northern_Honshu_Japan_to_Northeast_China
      Li, X., Wan, Y. G., Cui, H. W., et al., 2016. Tectonic Stress Field Analysis on the Source Region of the 2015 Mw 8.3 Chile Earthquake. Acta Seismologica Sinica., 38(6): 847-853(in Chinese with English abstract). http://www.zhangqiaokeyan.com/academic-journal-cn_acta-seismologica-sinica_thesis/0201251976166.html
      Martínez-Garzón, P., Kwiatek, G., Ickrath, M., et al., 2014. MSATSI: A MATLAB Package for Stress Inversion Combining Solid Classic Methodology, a New Simplified User-Handling, and a Visualization Tool. Seismological Research Letters, 85(4): 896-904. DOI: 10.1785/0220130189
      Milsom, J., Susilo, A., 2001. Short-Wavelength, High-Amplitude Gravity Anomalies around the Banda Sea, and the Collapse of the Sulawesi Orogen. Tectonophysics, 333(1/2): 61-74. DOI: 10.1016/s0040-1951(00)00267-5
      Panshori, A., Martha, A. A., Maryanto, S., 2019. Imaging the Velocity Structure of Rayleigh Wave in Sulawesi Island Using Ambient Noise Tomography. International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering, 5(1): 85-95. DOI: 10.31695/ijasre.2019.33072
      Rangin, C., Pubellier, M., Azema, J., et al., 1990. The Quest for Tethys in the Western Pacific; 8 Paleogeodynamic Maps for Cenozoic Time. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, VI(6): 907-913. DOI: 10.2113/gssgfbull.vi.6.907
      Replumaz, A., Kárason, H., van der Hilst, R. D., et al., 2004. 4-D Evolution of SE Asia's Mantle from Geological Reconstructions and Seismic Tomography. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 221(1/2/3/4): 103-115. DOI: 10.1016/s0012-821x(04)00070-6
      Robinson, D. P., Das, S., Searle, M. P., 2010. Earthquake Fault Superhighways. Tectonophysics, 493(3/4): 236-243. DOI: 10.1016/j.tecto.2010.01.010
      Satyana, A.H., 2006. Docking and Post-Docking Tectonic Escapes of Eastern Sulawesi: Collisional Convergence and Their Implications to Petroleum Habitat. Proceedings of Jakarta 2006 Geoscience Conference and Exhibition, New York.
      Satyana, A. H., Armandita, C, Tarigan, R. L., 2008. Collision and Post-Collision Tectonics in Indonesia: Roles for Basin Formation and Petroleum Systems. Proceedings, Indonesian Petroleum Association, 32th Annual Convention & Exhibition.
      Siebert, L., Simkin, T., Kimberly, P., 2010. Volcanoes of the World. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
      Silver, E. A., Joyodiwiryo, Y., McCaffrey, R., 1978. Gravity Results and Emplacement Geometry of the Sulawesi Ultramafic Belt, Indonesia. Geology, 6(9): 527. DOI:10.1130/0091-7613(1978)6<527:graego>2.0.co;2
      Silver, E. A., McCaffrey, R., Smith, R. B., 1983. Collision, Rotation, and the Initiation of Subduction in the Evolution of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 88(B11): 9407-9418. DOI: 10.1029/jb088ib11p09407
      Simandjuntak, T. O., Barber, A. J., 1996. Contrasting Tectonic Styles in the Neogene Orogenic Belts of Indonesia. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 106(1): 185-201. DOI: 10.1144/gsl.sp.1996.106.01.12
      Socquet, A., Simons, W., Vigny, C., et al., 2006. Microblock Rotations and Fault Coupling in SE Asia Triple Junction (Sulawesi, Indonesia) from GPS and Earthquake Slip Vector Data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111(B8): 1-15. DOI: 10.1029/2005jb003963
      Socquet, A., Hollingsworth, J., Pathier, E., et al., 2019. Evidence of Supershear during the 2018 Magnitude 7.5 Palu Earthquake from Space Geodesy. Nature Geoscience, 12(3): 192-199. DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0296-0
      Song, X. G., Zhang, Y. F., Shan, X. J., et al., 2019. Geodetic Observations of the 2018 Mw 7.5 Sulawesi Earthquake and its Implications for the Kinematics of the Palu Fault. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(8): 4212-4220. DOI: 10.1029/2019gl082045
      Stevens, C., McCaffrey, R., Bock, Y., et al., 1999. Rapid Rotations about a Vertical Axis in a Collisional Setting Revealed by the Palu Fault, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Geophysical Research Letters, 26(17): 2677-2680. DOI: 10.1029/1999gl008344
      Surmont, J., Laj, C., Kissel, C., et al., 1994. New Paleomagnetic Constraints on the Cenozoic Tectonic Evolution of the North Arm of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 121(3/4): 629-638. DOI: 10.1016/0012-821x(94)90096-5
      Vigny, C., Perfettini, H., Walpersdorf, A., et al., 2002. Migration of Seismicity and Earthquake Interactions Monitored by GPS in SE Asia Triple Junction: Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B10): ETG 7-1-ETG 7-11. DOI: 10.1029/2001jb000377
      Walpersdorf, A., Vigny, C., Subarya, C., et al., 1998a. Monitoring of the Palu-Koro Fault (Sulawesi) by GPS. Geophysical Research Letters, 25(13): 2313-2316. DOI: 10.1029/98gl01799
      Walpersdorf, A., Rangin, C., Vigny, C., 1998b. GPS Compared to Long-Term Geologic Motion of the North Arm of Sulawesi. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 159(1/2): 47-55. DOI: 10.1016/s0012-821x(98)00056-9
      Wan, Y. G., Sheng, S. Z., Xu, Y. R., et al., 2011. Effect of Stress Ratio and Friction Coefficient on Composite P Wave Radiation Patterns. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 54(4): 994-1001(in Chinese with English abstract). http://www.researchgate.net/publication/269991641_butongyinglizhuangtaihemocaxishuduizonghemabofushehuayangyingxiangdemoniyanjiuEffect_of_stress_ratio_and_friction_coefficient_on_composite_P_wave_radiation_patterns
      Wan, Y. G., 2016. Introduction to Seismology. Science Press, Beijing(in Chinese with English abstract).
      Wan, Y. G., 2019. Determination of Center of Several Focal Mechanisms of the Same Earthquake. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(12): 4718-4728(in Chinese with English abstract). http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-DQWX201912018.htm
      Wan, Y. G., Sheng, S. Z., Huang, J. C., et al., 2016. The Grid Search Algorithm of Tectonic Stress Tensor Based on Focal Mechanism Data and its Application in the Boundary Zone of China, Vietnam and Laos. Journal of Earth Science, 27(5): 777-785. DOI: 10.1007/s12583-015-0649-1
      Wang, S. J., Zhai, S.K., Yu, Z. K., et al., 2018. Reflections on Model of Modern Seafloor Hydrothermal System. Earth Science, 43(3): 835-850(in Chinese with English abstract). http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-DQKX201803016.htm
      Wang, Y. Z., Feng, W. P., Chen, K., et al., 2019. Source Characteristics of the 28 September 2018 Mw 7.4 Palu, Indonesia, Earthquake Derived from the Advanced Land Observation Satellite 2 Data. Remote Sensing, 11(17): 1999. DOI: 10.3390/rs11171999
      Watkinson, I. M., Hall, R., 2017. Fault Systems of the Eastern Indonesian Triple Junction: Evaluation of Quaternary Activity and Implications for Seismic Hazards. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 441(1): 71-120. DOI: 10.1144/sp441.8
      Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., 1995. New Version of the Generic Mapping Tools. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 76(33): 329-329. DOI: 10.1029/95eo00198
      Widiyantoro, S., Hilst, R., 1997. Mantle Structure beneath Indonesia Inferred from High-Resolution Tomographic Imaging. Geophysical Journal International, 130(1): 167-182. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1997.tb00996.x
      Wu, W. N., Kao, H., Hsu, S. K., et al., 2010. Spatial Variation of the Crustal Stress Field along the Ryukyu-Taiwan-Luzon Convergent Boundary. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115(B11): 1-19. DOI: 10.1029/2009jb007080
      Wu, W. N., Lo, C. L., Lin, J. Y., 2017. Spatial Variations of the Crustal Stress Field in the Philippine Region from Inversion of Earthquake Focal Mechanisms and Their Tectonic Implications. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 142(9): 109-118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2017.01.036
      Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., Taymaz, T., 2019. Source Characteristics of the 28 September 2018 Mw 7.5 Palu-Sulawesi, Indonesia (SE Asia) Earthquake Based on Inversion of Teleseismic Bodywaves. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176(10): 4111-4126. DOI: 10.1007/s00024-019-02294-1
      Zenonos, A., De Siena, L., Widiyantoro, S., et al., 2019. P and S Wave Travel Time Tomography of the SE Asia-Australia Collision Zone. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 293: 106267. DOI: 10.1016/j.pepi.2019.05.010
      Zhang, Y., Chen, Y. T., Feng, W. P., 2019. Complex Multiple-Segment Ruptures of the 28 September 2018, Sulawesi, Indonesia, Earthquake. Science Bulletin, 64(10): 650-652. DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2019.04.018
      Zoback, M. L., 1992. First- and Second-Order Patterns of Stress in the Lithosphere: The World Stress Map Project. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(B8): 11703. DOI: 10.1029/92jb00132
      崔华伟, 万永革, 黄骥超, 等, 2017. 2015年3月新不列颠MS 7.4地震震源及邻区构造应力场特征. 地球物理学报, 60(3): 985-998. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQWX201703014.htm
      崔华伟, 万永革, 黄骥超, 等, 2019. 帕米尔-兴都库什地区构造应力场反演及拆离板片应力形因子特征研究. 地球物理学报, 62(5): 1633-1649. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQWX201905006.htm
      高熹微, 万永革, 黄骥超, 等, 2015. 内蒙古阿拉善左旗MS 5.8地震的构造应力场和静态库伦应力变化分析. 华北地震科学, 33(2): 48-54. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-1375.2015.02.009
      黄骥超, 万永革, 盛书中, 等, 2016. 汤加-克马德克俯冲带现今非均匀应力场特征及其动力学意义. 地球物理学报, 59(2): 578-592. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQWX201602017.htm
      李付成, 孙珍, 张江阳, 2018. 大洋板块运动方向反转控制活动陆缘岩石圈张裂过程数值模拟. 地球科学, 43(10): 3762-3777. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2018.581
      李赫, 唐勇, 丁巍伟, 等, 2018. 菲律宾海四国海盆地壳结构重力反演及其形成演化过程分析. 地球科学, 43(3): 862-872. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2017.505
      李琦, 谭凯, 赵斌, 等, 2019. 2018年印尼帕卢MW 7.5地震——一次超剪切破裂事件. 地球物理学报, 62(8): 3017-3023. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQWX201908021.htm
      李天觉, 陈棋福, 2019. 西北太平洋俯冲带日本本州至中国东北段应力场反演. 地球物理学报, 62(2): 520-533. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQWX201902007.htm
      李祥, 万永革, 崔华伟, 等, 2016. 2015年智利MW 8.3地震震源区构造应力场分析. 地震学报, 38(6): 847-853. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZXB201606004.htm
      万永革, 2016. 地震学导论. 北京: 地震出版社.
      万永革, 2019. 同一地震多个震源机制中心解的确定. 地球物理学报, 62(12): 4718-4728. doi: 10.6038/cjg2019M0553
      万永革, 盛书中, 许雅儒, 等, 2011. 不同应力状态和摩擦系数对综合P波辐射花样影响的模拟研究. 地球物理学报, 54(4): 994-1001. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0001-5733.2011.04.014
      王淑杰, 翟世奎, 于增慧, 等, 2018. 关于现代海底热液活动系统模式的思考. 地球科学, 43(3): 835-850. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2018.907
    • 加载中
    图(7) / 表(1)
    计量
    • 文章访问数:  907
    • HTML全文浏览量:  659
    • PDF下载量:  54
    • 被引次数: 0
    出版历程
    • 收稿日期:  2020-08-17
    • 刊出日期:  2021-07-15

    目录

      /

      返回文章
      返回