4.7 Article

Large Surface-Rupture Gaps and Low Surface Fault Slip of the 2021 Mw 7.4 Maduo Earthquake Along a Low-Activity Strike-Slip Fault, Tibetan Plateau

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2021GL096874

关键词

strike-slip fault; earthquake; coseismic surface rupture; seismic hazard evaluation; Tibetan plateau

资金

  1. National Nonprofit Fundamental Research Grant of China, Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration [IGCEA2136, IGCEA2138]
  2. Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program [2019QZKK0901]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on field investigations, high-resolution UAV images, and InSAR data analysis, this study mapped the fault geometry and surface ruptures of the 2021 M-w 7.4 Maduo earthquake. The results showed that the earthquake activated a fault with complicated structural geometry, and the surface rupture spanned 148 km, divided into three distinct segments by two large gaps.
Based on field investigations, interpretations of high-resolution UAV images, and analyses of available InSAR data, we mapped the fault geometry and surface ruptures of the 2021 M-w 7.4 Maduo earthquake that occurred on a low-activity strike-slip fault within the Tibetan Plateau. The results indicate that (a) the earthquake activated a fault that is similar to 161 km long and has complicated structural geometry; (b) the surface rupture occurs over a distance of 148 km, but is separated into three distinct segments by two large gaps (38 and 20 km, respectively); (c) within the surface-rupture segments, the horizontal and vertical displacements are typically 0.2-2.6 m (much lower than the InSAR-based slip maximum of 2-6 m at depth) and <= 0.4 m, respectively. The two large gaps of the Maduo surface rupture represent the two largest surface-rupture discontinuities of strike-slip earthquakes ever documented, and coincide with structurally complicated fault portions and near-surface soft sediments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据