Coulomb stress effects of the April 3, 2024 Hualien, Taiwan, China MS 7.3 earthquake on the surrounding faults and subsequent April 23, 2024 MS 6.2 and MS 6.3 earthquakes
-
摘要:
为确定2024年4月3日中国台湾花莲MS 7.3地震的破裂方式及其对周围后续地震事件的触发作用，通过反演发震断层的三维几何结构和滑动特性，解析地震同震位移场及其诱发的地表应变响应，评估主震事件对2024年4月23日发生的MS 6.2地震及MS 6.3地震的库仑应力触发效应，进而阐明该地震对其地震活动的促进作用以及其对邻近区域应力场的影响。利用“震源机制中心解”的方法确定主震及其后续地震的2个可能发震节面；基于均匀弹性半空间模型，建立地震作用下的区域同震位移场与地表应变场；分析主震垂直断层走向的位移场结果，确定其滑动特性；计算主震在后续地震事件的库仑破裂应力变化，评估其对后续地震的促进作用；采用节面聚类的方法，确定地震事件的发震断层面；将中国台湾花莲地区应力场投影到地震事件的发震断层面上，分析其发震成因。研究结果表明，水平方向上物质在震中向北东和南西方向流出，南东和北西两侧大量涌入震中，断层南东方向（上盘）出现显著隆升，断层北西方向（下盘）出现明显沉降；垂直方向上断层上盘存在明显向上的运动分量，断层下盘存在明显向下的运动分量；主震对后续地震事件的活动性有促进作用，库仑应力变化均超过0.01 MPa阈值；主震及后续地震的产生是当地应力积累后的正常释放。
Abstract:Objective To determine the rupture mode of the MS 7.3 earthquake in Hualien, Taiwan, China on April 3, 2024 and its triggering effect on subsequent seismic events in the surrounding area, the co-seismic displacement field and the induced areal strain response were analyzed by inverting the geometric structure and sliding characteristics of the seismogenic fault. The static Coulomb Failure Stress (CFS) triggering effect of the main earthquake event on the two MS 6.2 and MS 6.3 earthquakes that occurred on April 23, 2024 was evaluated to clarify the promoting effect of this earthquake on the seismic activity and its influence on the stress field of the adjacent area.
Methods The two possible seismogenic nodes of the main earthquake and its subsequent earthquakes are determined by using the method of "focal mechanism solution". Based on the homogeneous elastic half-space theoretical model, the co-seismic displacement field and areal strain field under seismic action are established. The co-seismic displacement field results of the vertical fault direction of the main shock are analyzed and its sliding characteristics are determined. The CFS variation of the main shock in subsequent seismic events is calculated and its promoting effect on subsequent earthquakes is evaluated. The method of facet clustering is adopted to determine the seismogenic fault plane of the earthquake event. The stress field of the study area is projected onto the seismogenic fault plane and the causes of its occurrence are analyzed.
Results A co-seismic displacement analysis of the April 3, 2024 MS 7.3 Hualien earthquake in eastern Taiwan reveals distinct patterns in both horizontal and vertical displacement fields, consistent with a reverse fault mechanism. Based on the focal mechanism solution, this seismic event is identified as a typical reverse fault earthquake, aligning with the tectonic compression between the Eurasian Plate and the Pacific Plate. The horizontal displacement field demonstrates a complex material flow pattern: substantial crustal materials converged towards the seismogenic fault along its southeastern and northwestern flanks, followed by outward migration in northeastern and southwestern directions. This kinematic pattern reflects the intense plate convergence where the Pacific Plate subducts westward beneath the Eurasian Plate along the eastern margin of Taiwan Island. Vertical displacement measurements show significant differential movement across the fault. The southeastern block (upper plate) experienced remarkable uplift reaching 48.4 cm, while the northwestern block (lower plate) underwent subsidence of up to 11.4 cm. This vertical displacement configuration, characteristic of thrust faulting, is further confirmed by cross-sectional observations perpendicular to the fault strike. The interface between the upper and lower plates exhibits sharp kinematic contrasts, with the upper plate displaying predominant upward motion components and the lower plate showing downward movements. Along-strike displacement reached approximately 22 cm, significantly exceeding the maximum perpendicular displacement of ~5 cm; this indicates thrust-dominated rupture with minor strike-slip components. The strain field distribution corresponds to a compressive belt parallel to the fault trace near the epicenter, flanked by extensional zones to the immediate east and west. Stress field analysis reveals significant shear stress concentrations (relative shear stress >0.7) and negative normal stresses on the fault planes of three major earthquakes in the sequence, consistent with the compressional regime generated by plate convergence. The westward subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath Taiwan Island creates optimal conditions for thrust faulting along the Longitudinal Valley Fault system, where accumulated shear stress ultimately exceeds the fault strength threshold. Notably, the Coulomb Failure Stress (CFS) calculations demonstrate that the April 3 mainshock significantly promoted subsequent seismic activity. The April 23 MS 6.3 and MS 6.2 events occurred in regions where the calculated CFS changes reached 0.020 MPa and 0.3 MPa, respectively, both exceeding the 0.01 MPa threshold for earthquake triggering. This earthquake sequence represents a normal release process of accumulated tectonic stress in the plate convergence zone. The spatial-temporal evolution of co-seismic deformation, strain redistribution, and stress interactions fully aligns with the regional tectonic framework dominated by the ongoing collision between the Eurasian and Pacific Plates.
Conclusion Research shows that the MS 7.3 earthquake in Hualien, Taiwan, was caused by thrust faults. This earthquake event, along with the two subsequent MS 6.2 and MS 6.3 earthquake events that occurred on April 23, 2024, were all normal releases of local stress accumulation. Moreover, the CFS generated by the MS 7.3 earthquake in Hualien, Taiwan, has a significant impact on the surrounding seismic activities and has an obvious promoting effect on the occurrence of the subsequent two earthquakes. [Significance] This study not only evaluates the impact of the MS 7.3 earthquake in Hualien, Taiwan, on subsequent earthquakes, but also provides a fundamental dataset for geodynamic studies in the region. Strengthening the capacity of earthquake monitoring and forecasting and disaster mitigation promotes the formulation of relevant policies and safeguards people's lives and properties.
-
-
表 1 不同初始解得到的中国台湾花莲县MS 7.3地震相关参数
Table 1. Parameters related to the April 3, MS 7.3 earthquake in Hualien County, Taiwan, China, obtained by different initial solutions
序号 震源机制解
走向/（°）、倾角/（°）、
滑动角/（°）来源 作为初始解得到
的标准差/（°）以法属波利尼西亚探测与地球
物理实验室的结果作为初始解
的中心震源机制解与其他震源
机制解的最小空间旋转角/（°）1 229、28、115 欧洲−地中海地震中心 https://www.emsc-csem.org/ 9.742806 6.27 2 237、36、119 巴黎地球物理研究所 https://www.ipgp.fr/ 9.742946 7.55 3 220、23、100 德国地球科学研究中心 https://www.gfz.de/ 9.743199 11.48 4 219、34、107 美国地质勘探局 https://www.usgs.gov/ 9.743203 4.33 5 233、40、122 法属波利尼西亚探测与地球物理实验室 https://www.cppt.org/ 9.742575 10.62 6 230、38、117 全球矩心矩张量 https://www.globalcmt.org/ 9.742644 6.88 7 211.3、31.1、86.8 中央研究院地球科学研究所 https://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/ (GRMT)9.742764 12.95 8 217.2、42.3、89.7 中央研究院地球科学研究所 https://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/ (CMT)9.742668 16.54 9 228、34、119 张喆 https://www.cea-igp.ac.cn/kydt/280530.html 9.74313 7.73 10 234、41、116 张勇研究组 https://pku-geophysics-source.group/htmls/20240402235808Hualian.html 9.743004 6.43 注：数据来源一列的括号内容为使用的方法 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 中国台湾2024年4月23日MS 6.3及MS 6.2地震震源机制中心解结果
Table 2. Focal mechanism solutions for the MS 6.3 and MS 6.2 earthquakes in Taiwan on April 23, 2024
震级 节面 走向/（°） 倾角/（°） 滑动角/（°） MS 6.3 节面Ⅰ 23.45 68.88 86.28 节面Ⅱ 213.67 21.43 99.53 MS 6.2 节面Ⅰ 50.50 58.31 96.83 节面Ⅱ 217.66 32.34 79.10
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 震源机制中心解确定的断层面上的相对剪应力和相对正应力统计表
Table 3. Table of relative shear stress and relative normal stress on fault planes of the central focal mechanism
震级 节面Ⅰ上的相对剪应力/相对正应力 MS 7.3 0.872/−0.557 MS 6.3 0.646/−0.830 MS 6.2 0.882/−0.352
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] DAI Y L, WAN Y G, KONG X X, et al., 2022. Central focal mechanism of the Dengta, Liaoning M5.1 earthquake in 2013 and the analysis of its surrounding tectonic stress field[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 45(4): 570-580. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2] DONG F F, YUAN L W, DENG H, 2022. Dynamic coulomb failure stress analysis of Fuzhou small earthquake swarm caused by Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan province[J]. South China Journal of Seismology, 42(4): 54-59. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3] FANG C Y, FAN X M, WANG X, et al. , 2024. Assessment of geological hazards triggered by the 2024 Mw 7.4 earthquake in Hualien, Taiwan, China[J]. Journal of Chengdu University of Technology (Science & Technology Edition), 51(4): 654-663, 672. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4] GUAN Z X, WAN Y G, HUANG S H, et al., 2023. Study on the triggering mechanism and earthquake dynamics of the 2022 Michoacan Mw7.6 earthquake sequence in Mexico[J]. Earthquake Research in China, 39(3): 584-595. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[5] HARRIS R A, 1998. Introduction to special section: stress triggers, stress shadows, and implications for seismic hazard[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103(B10): 24347-24358. doi: 10.1029/98JB01576
[6] HU X B, 2024. Inversion for the slip distribution of the 2022 Taiwan MW6.9 earthquake based on GPS displacements[J]. Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics, 44(2): 173-176. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7] HUANG S H, WAN Y G, FENG G, et al., 2023. Trigger mechanism and dynamic causes of the Taiwan earthquake sequence on September 17, 2022[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 29(5): 674-684. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8] JAEGER J C, COOK N G W, ZIMMERMAN R W, 2007. Fundamentals of rock mechanics[M]. 4th ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 488.
[9] JIN Z T, WAN Y G, LIU Z C, et al., 2019. The static stress triggering influences of the 2017 Ms7.0 Jiuzhaigou earthquake on neighboring areas[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(4): 1282-1299. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10] JOLIVET L, FACCENNA C, BECKER T, et al., 2018. Mantle flow and deforming continents: from India–Asia convergence to Pacific subduction[J]. Tectonics, 37(9): 2887-2914. doi: 10.1029/2018TC005036
[11] KING G C P, STEIN R S, LIN J, 1994. Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(3): 935-953.
[12] LI H W, XU Z G, WANG Z C, et al., 2025. Uncertainty quantification in probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment (PTHA): a case study in South China Sea[J]. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 19(2): 2450032. doi: 10.1142/S1793431124500325
[13] LI Q H, WAN Y G, 2024, Geometry of seismogenic faults determination of the 2021 Maduo earthquake sequence by fuzzy clustering algorithm[J]. Earth Science, 49(9): 3363-3376. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14] LI Y, WAN Y G, JIN Z T, et al., 2017. The study of static stress variation of the MW6.3 Jinghe earthquake[J]. Earthquake Research in China, 33(4): 671-681. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15] LI Z Y, WAN Y G, JIN Z T, et al., 2020. The static Coulomb stress influence of the Mainling M6.9 earthquake in Xizang on November 18, 2017 to the subsequent earthquakes[J]. Seismology and Geology, 42(5): 1091-1108. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16] LU D H, CHEN K, WEI J T, 2024. Preliminary study on shallow seismic activity model in Taiwan region[J]. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, 19(3): 494-503. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17] OKADA Y, 1992. Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 82(2): 1018-1040. doi: 10.1785/BSSA0820021018
[18] REN X, JI Y D, CHEN J L, et al., 2024. Determination of source parameters of MS7.3 earthquake near coast of Hualien, Taiwan, China, April 3, 2024[J]. Earthquake Research in China, 40(4): 775-786. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19] STEIN R S, KING G C P, LIN J, 1992. Change in failure stress on the southern San Andreas fault system caused by the 1992 Magnitude = 7.4 landers earthquake[J]. Science, 258(5086): 1328-1332. doi: 10.1126/science.258.5086.1328
[20] WAN Y G, WU Z L, ZHOU G W, et al., 2000. How to get rake angle of the earthquake fault from known strike and dip of the two nodal planes[J]. Seismological and Geomagnetic Observation and Research, 21(5): 26-30. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21] WAN Y G, SHEN Z K, SHENG S Z, et al., 2010. The mechanical effects of the 2008 Ms7.3 Yutian, Xinjiang earthquake on the neighboring faults and its tectonic origin of normal faulting mechanism[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 53(2): 280-289. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22] WAN Y G, WU Y M, SHENG S Z, et al., 2011a. Preliminary result of Taiwan 3-D stress field from P wave polarity data[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 54(11): 2809-2818. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23] WAN Y G, SHENG S Z, XU Y R, et al., 2011b. Effect of stress ratio and friction coefficient on composite P wave radiation patterns[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 54(4): 994-1001. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24] WAN Y G, SHENG S Z, LI X, et al., 2015. Stress influence of the 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence on Chinese mainland[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 58(11): 4277-4286. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25] WAN Y G, 2019. Determination of center of several focal mechanisms of the same earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 62(12): 4718-4728. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26] WAN Y G, 2020. Simulation on relationship between stress regimes and focal mechanisms of earthquakes[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 63(6): 2281-2296. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27] WAN Y G, 2022. Method of active fault geometry determination by clustering nodal planes of focal mechanisms occurred on the fault belt and its application to the 2021 Yangbi earthquake sequence[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 65(2): 637-648. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[28] WANG Q Y, CHEN K, WANG Y Z, et al., 2024. Quick output parameters related to the 3 April 2024 M7.3 earthquake in the sea area of Hualien County, Taiwan Province[J]. Progress in Earthquake Sciences, 54(4): 286-291. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[29] WANG X Y, ZHAO M H, HE X B, et al., 2025. Seismic imaging revealing the processes from subduction to arc-continental collision in the northeastern South China Sea[J]. Tectonophysics, 902: 230684. doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2025.230684
[30] WELLS D L, COPPERSMITH K J, 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(4): 974-1002. doi: 10.1785/BSSA0840040974
[31] WU W N, YEN Y T, HSU Y J, et al., 2017. Spatial variation of seismogenic depths of crustal earthquakes in the Taiwan region: implications for seismic hazard assessment[J]. Tectonophysics, 708: 81-95. doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2017.04.028
[32] XU L J, LÜ M, ZHANG H, et al., 2024. Relative motions between cross-fault sites resultd from the 1999 MW7.6 Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 46(3): 425-441. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[33] ZIWU F D, DOSER D I, SCHINAGEL S M, 2020. A geophysical study of the Castle Mountain Fault, southcentral Alaska[J]. Tectonophysics, 789: 228567. doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2020.228567
[34] 戴盈磊, 万永革, 孔祥雪, 等, 2022. 2013年辽宁灯塔M5.1地震震源机制中心解及震源区构造应力场特征分析[J]. 地震研究, 45(4): 570-580.
[35] 董非非, 袁丽文, 邓辉, 2022. 台湾集集地震对福州小震群的动态库仑破裂应力分析[J]. 华南地震, 42(4): 54-59.
[36] 方成勇, 范宣梅, 王欣, 等, 2024. 2024年台湾花莲7.4级地震诱发地质灾害应急评价[J]. 成都理工大学学报(自然科学版), 51(4): 654-663, 672.
[37] 关兆萱, 万永革, 黄少华, 等, 2023. 2022年墨西哥米却肯州7.6级地震序列的触发关系及发震动力学探讨[J]. 中国地震, 39(3): 584-595. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4683.2023.03.010
[38] 胡晓斌, 2024. GPS约束下的2022年台湾MW6.9地震破裂滑动分布[J]. 大地测量与地球动力学, 44(2): 173-176.
[39] 黄少华, 万永革, 冯淦, 等, 2023. 2022年9月17日中国台湾地震序列的触发机制及其动力学成因[J]. 地质力学学报, 29(5): 674-684.
[40] 靳志同, 万永革, 刘兆才, 等, 2019. 2017年九寨沟Ms7.0地震对周围地区的静态应力影响[J]. 地球物理学报, 62(4): 1282-1299.
[41] 李佺洪, 万永革, 2024. 采用模糊聚类算法确定2021年玛多地震序列的断层结构[J]. 地球科学, 49(9): 3363-3376.
[42] 李瑶, 万永革, 靳志同, 等, 2017. 新疆精河MW6.3地震产生的静态应力变化研究[J]. 中国地震, 33(4): 671-681.
[43] 李振月, 万永革, 靳志同, 等, 2020. 2017年11月18日西藏米林M6.9地震对后续地震的静态库伦应力的影响[J]. 地震地质, 42(5): 1091-1108. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2020.05.005
[44] 陆东华, 陈鲲, 魏佳彤, 2024. 台湾地区浅层地震活动性模型初步研究[J]. 震灾防御技术, 19(3): 494-503.
[45] 任枭, 姬运达, 陈经纶, 等, 2024. 2024年4月3日中国台湾花莲海域MS7.3地震震源参数测定[J]. 中国地震, 40(4): 775-786.
[46] 万永革, 吴忠良, 周公威, 等, 2000. 根据震源的两个节面的走向角和倾角求滑动角[J]. 地震地磁观测与研究, 21(5): 26-30.
[47] 万永革, 沈正康, 盛书中, 等, 2010. 2008年新疆于田7.3级地震对周围断层的影响及其正断层机制的区域构造解释[J]. 地球物理学报, 53(2): 280-289. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0001-5733.2010.02.006
[48] 万永革, 吴逸民, 盛书中, 等, 2011a. P波极性数据所揭示的台湾地区三维应力结构的初步结果[J]. 地球物理学报, 54(11): 2809-2818.
[49] 万永革, 盛书中, 许雅儒, 等, 2011b. 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[J]. 地球物理学报, 54(4): 994-1001.
[50] 万永革, 盛书中, 李祥, 等, 2015. 2015年尼泊尔强震序列对中国大陆的应力影响[J]. 地球物理学报, 58(11): 4277-4286. doi: 10.6038/cjg20151132
[51] 万永革, 2019. 同一地震多个震源机制中心解的确定[J]. 地球物理学报, 62(12): 4718-4728. doi: 10.6038/cjg2019M0553
[52] 万永革, 2020. 震源机制与应力体系关系模拟研究[J]. 地球物理学报, 63(6): 2281-2296. doi: 10.6038/cjg2020M0472
[53] 万永革, 2022. 断裂带震源机制节面聚类确定断裂带产状方法及在2021年漾濞地震序列中的应用[J]. 地球物理学报, 65(2): 637-648.
[54] 王钦莹, 陈鲲, 王永哲, 等, 2024. 2024年4月3日台湾省花莲县海域7.3级地震的快速产出参数[J]. 地震科学进展, 54(4): 286-291.
[55] 徐龙军, 吕淼, 张恒, 等, 2024. 1999年台湾集集MW7.6地震跨断层场地相对运动[J]. 地震学报, 46(3): 425-441. doi: 10.11939/jass.20220170
-
图(8)
表(3)
计量
- 文章访问数: 31
- PDF下载数: 6
- 施引文献: 0