Geodetic Model of the 2017 Mw 6.5 Mainling Earthquake Inferred from GPS and Insar Data
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
remote sensing Letter Geodetic Model of the 2017 Mw 6.5 Mainling Earthquake Inferred from GPS and InSAR Data Huizi Jian, Lifeng Wang *, Weijun Gan, Keliang Zhang, Yanchuan Li , Shiming Liang, Yunhua Liu, Wenyu Gong and Xinzhong Yin State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics, Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100029, China; [email protected] (H.J.); [email protected] (W.G.); [email protected] (K.Z.); [email protected] (Y.L.); [email protected] (S.L.); [email protected] (Y.L.); [email protected] (W.G.); [email protected] (X.Y.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-010-6200-9427 Received: 2 November 2019; Accepted: 3 December 2019; Published: 9 December 2019 Abstract: On 17 November 2017, a Mw 6.5 earthquake occurred in Mainling County, Nyingchi City, China. The epicenter was located in the Namche Barwa region of the eastern Himalayan syntaxis. Here, we have derived coseismic deformation from Global Positioning System (GPS) data and ascending Sentinel-1A Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data. Based on a joint inversion of the two datasets, we obtained the coseismic slip distribution along a curved, northeast trending, and high-angle (dip angle of 75◦) thrust fault. Our results show that the seismic moment release was 7.49 1018 N m, corresponding to a moment magnitude of Mw 6.55. The maximum slip was 1.03 m × · and the main rupture zone extended to a 12 km depth. The earthquake may have been related to the release of strain accumulated during the subduction of the Indian plate beneath the Eurasian continent. We identified a high strain rate and low b-values around the epicentral area before the earthquake, indicating that the earthquake was nucleated under a high strain/stress state. The data indicate two regions, southwest and southeast to the epicenter (the eastern Main Himalaya Thrust and northern end of the Sagaing fault), which remain under high stress/strain conditions and pose a significant seismic hazard. Keywords: coseismic modeling; GPS; InSAR; inversion; the eastern Himalayan syntaxis 1. Introduction At 22:34 (UTC) on November 17, 2017, a Mw 6.5 earthquake (epicenter of 29.75◦ N, 95.02◦ E) struck Mainling County, Nyingchi City, Tibet (herein referred to as the Mainling earthquake), with a focal depth of 10 km (Figure1). The maximum intensity given by the China Earthquake Administration was VIII [1]. No casualties were reported, but more than 3000 buildings were damaged. According to the focal mechanism provided by the Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT) Project, the earthquake was a thrust event that occurred in the northern part of the Namche Barwa region, along the NNW-trending Xixingla fault [2]. More than 4000 aftershocks were recorded within the first week of the mainshock, including 22 M > 3 aftershocks [3], the largest being M 4.3. Owing to the remote location and difficult accessibility of the Namche Barwa region, no clear surface rupture was identified [3]. Nevertheless, owing to the dense seismic network deployed in eastern Tibet and advances in space geodesy, the earthquake was recorded with sufficient data coverage and quality to study its rupture process, and to investigate the crustal deformation and seismic activity of the Namche Barwa region. These results provide new insights into the crust dynamics of the eastern Himalayan syntaxis. Several studies have investigated the earthquake using finite fault modeling (Table1) based on relocated aftershocks, interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) measurements, and teleseismic Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2940; doi:10.3390/rs11242940 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 14 41 of the Namche Barwa region. These results provide new insights into the crust dynamics of the 42 eastern Himalayan syntaxis. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2940 2 of 14 43 Several studies have investigated the earthquake using finite fault modeling (Table 1) based on 44 relocated aftershocks, interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) measurements, and 45 datateleseismic [1,3–8 ].data However, [1,3–8]. there However, are inconsistencies there are inconsistencies among the di amongfferent faultthe different models, coseismicfault models, slip 46 distributions,coseismic slip anddistributions, produced and Coulomb produced stress Coulomb changes. stress For changes example,. For using example, teleseismic using teleseismic data and 47 InSAR-measureddata and InSAR-measured surface deformation, surface deformation, Liu et al. Liu [1] reportedet al. [1] reported that the earthquake that the earthquake broke one broke asperity, one 48 andasperity, that rupturesand that were ruptures concentrated were concentrated between the between surface andthe atsurface a 10 km and depth, at a with10 km a maximumdepth, with slip a 49 ofmaximum 0.51 m. However,slip of 0.51 Li etm. al. However, [9] identified Li et two al. coseismic[9] identified slip areas, two coseismic dominantly slip distributed areas, dominantly at depths 50 ofdistributed 5–15 km, at with depths a maximum of 5–15 km, slip with of 0.83 a maximum m. Based slip on theof 0.83 aftershock m. Based data, on the Xiong aftershock et al. [6 ]data, suggested Xiong 51 thatet al. the [6]earthquake suggested that ruptured the earthquake two adjacent rup paralleltured two faults. adjacent Their parallel inversion faults. results Their based inversion on the InSARresults 52 databased provide on the comparableInSAR data maximumprovide comparable slips of 0.36 maximum and 0.43 slips m on of the0.36 two and fault 0.43 planes. m on the In two addition, fault 53 theplanes. different In addition,studies havethe different considered studies divergent have faultconsidered plane solutionsdivergent (Table fault1 ),plane which solutions has also (Table resulted 1), 54 inwhich ambiguities has also inresulted slip modeling. in ambiguities All of thesein slip discrepancies modeling. All are of duethese to discrepancies a lack of observations are due to that a lack can 55 constrainof observations the fault that model can constrain well. the fault model well. 56 57 Figure 1.1. TectonicTectonic backgroundbackground of of the the 2017 2017 Mw Mw 6.5 6.5 Mainling Mainling earthquake. earthquake. (a) ( Regionala) Regional map map showing showing the 58 earthquakethe earthquake location. location. (b) Tectonic (b) Tectonic setting. setting. Blue arrowsBlue arrows indicate indicate interseismic interseismic global positioningglobal positioning system 59 (GPS)system velocity (GPS) velocity fields of fields the eastern of the eastern Himalayan Himalayan syntaxis syntaxis measured measured between between 1999 and 1999 2016 and [ 12016]; error [1]; 60 ellipseserror ellipses indicate indicate a 95% a confidence 95% confidence level; level the red; the rectangle red rectangle marks marks the InSAR the InSAR data coverage;data coverage; the blue the 61 rectangleblue rectangle outlines outlines the areathe area shown shown in (c). in (c). (c)M (c) >M3 > earthquakes3 earthquakes (orange (orange dots) dots) in in the the NamcheNamche BarwaBarwa 62 regionregion fromfrom 19651965 toto 20172017 andand aftershocksaftershocks (blue(blue dots)dots) ofof thethe MainlingMainling earthquakeearthquake [[10]10].. TheThe beachbeach ballball 63 indicatesindicates thethe GlobalGlobal Centroid Centroid Moment Moment Tensor Tensor (GCMT) (GCMT) focal focal mechanism mechanism of theof the earthquake; earthquake; the redthe starred 64 representsstar represents the epicenter; the epicenter; the blue the blue line denotesline denotes the fault the fault that likelythat likely generated generated the earthquake; the earthquake; black black lines 65 representlines represent other other faults faults in the in study the study region region [1] (JSZ: [1] Jiali(JSZ: Shear Jiali Shear Zone; Zone; DMF: DMF Dongjiu-Mainling: Dongjiu-Mainling fault; fault; NBS: 66 NamcheNBS: Namche Barwa Barwa region; region; ZSF: ZayuZSF: Zayu fault; fault; MAF: MAF Motuo-Aniqiao: Motuo-Aniqiao fault; fault; BLF: BLF Baqing-Leiniaoqi: Baqing-Leiniaoqi fault; fault; NJF: 67 NujiangNJF: Nujiang fault; fault; XXLF: XXLF Xixingla: Xixingla fault; fault; IYSZ: IYSZ Yarlung: Yarlung Zangbo Zangbo suture suture zone; zone; AS: Assam AS: Assam syntaxis). syntaxis). 68 InIn thisthis study,study, wewe havehave includedincluded GPSGPS displacementdisplacement datadata forfor thethe firstfirst time.time. These data were 69 acquiredacquired inin campaign-modecampaign-mode before andand afterafter thethe earthquake.earthquake. By referring to fieldfield geological survey 70 datadata [11[11,12],,12], we we also also determined determined a curved a curved fault plane, fault accordingplane, according to the relocated to the aftershock relocated distribution, aftershock 71 anddistribution, optimized andthe optimized dip-angle the according dip-angle to according the data to fitting the data quality fitting of quality the slip of models.the slip models. This paper This 72 ispaper organized is organized as follows. as follows We first. We introduce first introduce the tectonic the tectonic background background of the Namcheof the Namche Barwa regionBarwa 73 (Sectionregion (Section2), then 2), describe then describethe data the processing data processing of the of coseismic the coseismic displacement displacement field, field, including including the processing schemes for the GPS and SAR data (Section3). Section4 describes how the fault parameters were determined and the slip modeling results were obtained. In Section5, we discuss the two fault Remote