4.6 Article

Focal mechanisms of recent earthquakes in the Southern Korean Peninsula

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL
卷 169, 期 3, 页码 1103-1114

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03321.x

关键词

earthquake; fault-slip inversion analysis; focal mechanism solution; stress; South Korea

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [과06A1401, 2003-201-C00074, 과06A1402] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluate the stress field in and around the southern Korean Peninsula with focal mechanism solutions, using the data collected from 71 earthquakes (M-L D 1.9-5.2) between 1999 and 2004. For this, the hypocentres were relocated and well-constrained fault plane solutions were obtained from the data set of 1270 clear P-wave polarities and 46 SH/P amplitude ratios. The focal mechanism solutions indicate that the prevailing faulting types in South Korea are strike-slip-dominant-oblique-slip faultings with minor reverse-slip component. The maximum principal stresses ( (1)) estimated from fault-slip inversion analysis of the focal mechanism solutions show a similar orientation with E-W trend (269(-)-275(-)) and low-angle plunge (10(-)-25(-)) for all tectonic provinces in South Korea, consistent with the E-W trending maximum horizontal stress ( (Hmax)) of the Amurian microplate reported from in situ stress measurements and earthquake focal mechanisms. The directions of the intermediate ( (2)) and minimum ( (3)) principal stresses of the Gyeongsang Basin are, however, about 90 deg off from those of the other tectonic provinces on a common (2)-(3) plane, suggesting a permutation of (2) and (3). Our results incorporated with those from the kinematic studies of the Quaternary faults imply that NNW- to NE-striking faults (dextral strike-slip or oblique-slip with a reverse-slip component) are highly likely to generate earthquakes in South Korea.

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

4.6
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