4.7 Article

Crustal Shortening and Rheological Behavior Across the Longmen Shan Fault, Eastern Margin of the Tibetan Plateau

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 49, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022GL098814

关键词

lower crustal rheology; interseismic deformation; eastern Tibet; crustal shortening rate; the Longmen Shan

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41731072]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC1500501]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge of lithospheric rheology provides fundamental insights into crustal deformation near the Longmen Shan fault (LMSF). The study reveals a high-viscosity zone beneath the LMSF, where the steady-state viscosity is significantly higher than the transient viscosity. Furthermore, the effective lower crustal viscosity decreases immediately after the earthquake and recovers to interseismic level.
Knowledge of lithospheric rheology can provide fundamental insights into crustal deformation near the Longmen Shan fault (LMSF). Based on viscoelastic deformation models constrained by interseismic geodetic observations, we obtain an optimal crustal shortening rate of 4.8 +/- 0.4 mm/a across the LMSF and an upper mantle viscosity of 5.0 x 10(20-21) Pa center dot s beneath eastern Tibet. More importantly, we find a high-viscosity zone (>10(21) Pa center dot s) in the lower crust beneath the LMSF, where the steady-state viscosity is significantly higher than the transient viscosity derived from postseismic deformation. Further investigations with a power-law rheology suggest that, due to the stress loading of the Wenchuan earthquake and the relaxation afterwards, the effective lower crustal viscosity decreases to similar to 10(18) Pa center dot s immediately after the earthquake and finally recovers to interseismic level (similar to 10(21) Pa center dot s). Our results highlight the stress-dependent behavior and the viscoelastic effect of rheological structure beneath the LMSF during the earthquake cycle.

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