Earthquake Reaearch in China  2017, Vol. 31 Issue (2): 151-168
Comparative Study of Changes in Stress-drop of the Jinggu MS6.6 and Ludian MS6.5 Earthquake Sequences
Zhou Shaohui1, Jiang Haikun2, Qu Junhao1     
1. Earthquake Administration of Shandong Province, Jinan 250102, China;
2. China Earthquake Networks Center, Beijing 100045, China
Abstract: The earthquake stress-drop values of two sequences were accurately calculated after taking away the effects due to regional earthquake anelastic attenuation and station site response, using waveform data and seismic phase data of sequences of the Jinggu MS6.6, and Ludian MS6.5 earthquakes in Yunnan. These results show that the stress drop with magnitude increases within the scope of this study of magnitude. After eliminating the influence of the magnitude, the average value of stress-drop in the Jinggu sequence is higher than that of the Ludian sequence at the same magnitude range. This may be related to the stress state in different regions. In terms of the changes of time and space of stress-drop, before MS5.8 strong aftershock, the stress-drop is "slowing down-turning up-keeping a high value" after the mainshock, meanwhile, almost all of the abnormally high stress drop value is distributed around the MS5.8 strong aftershock, showing that the stress environment in the region was increasing after the mainshock. And after the MS5.9 strong aftershock, stress-drop rapidly declines to a relatively stable state, meanwhile, the high value of stress-drop is distributed around the strong aftershock, showing that the regional tectonic stress gets more fully release, its stress environment begins to rapidly decrease. For the Ludian sequence without a strong aftershock occurring, the average value of stress drop is lower than that of the Jinggu earthquake sequence at the same magnitude range, while at the same time, the stress-drop of the aftershock sequence almost hasnt changed much. In the time after the mainshock, combined with the release characteristics of the main energy, the stress in the region is excessively released, the subsequent stress in the region gradually returns to normal. This may be the reason why the activity of Ludian aftershocks significantly was weaker and subsequently there were no strong aftershocks occurred.
Key words: Stress-drop     Aftershock sequence     Ludian earthquake     Jinggu earthquake    

INTRODUCTION

With the continuous improvement of the digital observation technology of seismicity, attention is gradually paid to the study of aftershock prediction by calculating the source and medium parameters based on digital seismic data. This is an important future direction for development of the determination of post-seismic tendency (Jiang Haikun et al., 2015). Seismicity is a medium rupture in the source area or extension of the instability of the original fault under the action of the external load, whether it is rupture or extension of the instability of the original fault, and is the result of rock deformation to a certain extent under stress. In other words, the occurrence of earthquakes is related to the stress environment, where the rocks broke. In the case of aftershocks, the determination of the stress state of the source region has great significance to the judgment of post-seismic tendency and the prediction of strong aftershocks after an earthquake (Zhong Yuyun et al., 2004). Under the existing technical conditions, the stress state of the focal area can′t be directly measured due to earthquake occurrence in the deep underground. The strength, direction and mode of the local stress field are often studied using the focal mechanism, the stress-drop and the apparent stress (Chen Xuezhong, 2005). Among these, the stress drop indicates that the stress is changed on the dislocation surface when the earthquake occurs instantaneously. The change with time of the stress-drop of small earthquakes may reflect the change of the stress state (Hua Wei, 2007). Theoretically, if the stress-drop of small-moderate earthquakes in the aftershock sequence is gradually increased after a big earthquake, then the focal area is still in a high stress state, and there is a mechanical background condition for strong aftershocks to follow (Jiang Haikun et al., 2015). By calculating the source parameters of the aftershock sequence and analyzing the variation of the stress-drop with time and space, it is possible to understand the dynamic evolution of the stress state in the source region, which may have some significance for the prediction of a subsequent strong aftershock (Hua Wei et al., 2009).

On August 3 and October 7, 2014, the Ludian MS6.5 and Jingxiu MS6.6 earthquakes successively occurred in the Yunnan region, with similar magnitude and the same rupture pattern (both nearly NNW strike-slip faults). Both were respectively located in the east and southwest sides of the Sichuan-Yunnan rhomboidal block, and were related to the SN movement of the Sichuan-Yunnan rhomboidal block, but the two earthquakes did not occurred on the crustal boundary zone (Fig. 1(a)). The aftershock activity of the two earthquakes is quite different; as of January 7, 2015, the maximum magnitude aftershocks of the Ludian earthquake were the two MS4.7 earthquakes that occurred on August 4, and September 10, 2014. However, Jinggu successively saw two strong aftershocks with magnitude 5.8, 5.9 after two months. This provides an important earthquake example for the study and analysis of the aftershock sequence of stress-drop, and the study of a possible relationship between the changes of stress-drop and subsequent strong aftershocks.

Fig. 1 Distribution of faults, stations and aftershocks in the study area (a)The distribution of the main active faults in the Sichuan-Yunnan region and the Ludian and Jinggu earthquakes; (b) is the magnification of the b-box in (a), the circle for the ML≥2.5 aftershocks of the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake sequence from August 3 to November 3, 2014; (C) is the magnification of the c-box in (a), and the circle is the ML≥2.5 aftershocks the Jinggu MS6.6 earthquake sequence from October 7 to January 7, 2014; the triangles of the figures (b) and (c) are the stations participates in the calculation, black triangles denote stations of the Yunnan Digital Seismic Network; green ones denotes mobile station; blue denotes the Qiaojia seismic array; red ones denote reservoir network stations

Based on the waveform and seismic phase data of the Ludian and Jinggu earthquake sequences, the stress-drop of ML2.5-5.0 earthquake events in the Ludian and Jinggu earthquake sequences is calculated respectively. In this paper, the comparative study of the general characteristics of stress-drop of the aftershocks in the same period after the mainshock, and the change of time and space of stress-drop, exploration of the potential differences of stress-drop in the early stage of subsequent strong aftershocks and follow-up without strong aftershocks, as well as the indication of the subsequent strong aftershocks by the change of time and space of stress-drop are carried out.

1 PRINCIPLE AND METHODS

The source parameters are calculated by inverting the source spectrum from the actual seismic waveform data, and then the seismic source spectrum is fitted with the theoretical source spectrum to obtain the corresponding source spectral parameters.

The seismic waveform data recorded by the seismic station contains information such as the source, seismic wave propagation path and site effects of stations (Liu Jie et al., 2003). The seismic displacement spectrum Uij(f) recorded by the station can be expressed as:

$ {{U}_{ij}}\left( f \right)=\left[ {{S}_{i}}\left( f \right){{P}_{ij}}\left( f \right)L_{f}^{'}\left( f \right)+{{N}_{j}}\left( f \right) \right]{{I}_{j}}\left( f \right)Su{{r}_{j}} $ (1)

Where f is the frequency; Si(f) is the seismic source spectrum of the earthquake i; Pij(f) is the propagation path effect between the earthquake i and the station j, describing the attenuation of the seismic wave during propagation, including geometric diffusion and inelastic attenuation; L'j(f) is the local site effects of stations j, which describes the amplification effect of the seismic wave from the media of near-surface stratum near station; Nj(f) is the ground noise near station j; Ij(f) is the instrumental response of the station j; Surj is the free surface effect near the station j, which describes the reflection characteristics of seismic waves incident on the free surface. Theoretically, the displacement of the reflected wave for the waves SH that produce reflections is equal to the displacement of the incident wave. The displacement of recorded wave SH is exactly twice the displacement of the incident wave, that is, Surj=2 in the station type (1) of the SH wave record of the terrestrial station, while the downhole record is Surj=1.

From the equation (1), in order to get the source spectrum Si(f), it is necessary to eliminate the noise term Nj(f), the instrumental response Ij(f), the propagation path effect Pij(f) (including geometric diffusion and inelastic attenuation) and the local site L′j(f) of station j from the seismic wave recording. At present, it is common practice to eliminate noise levels in the process of converting seismic signals from a time domain to a frequency domain using the delayed window spectrum technique (Chael, 1987; Huang Yulong et al., 2003), which can be calibrated by instrument calibration since the usually instrument response is the comprehensive effect of each part of the seismograph observation system (Liu Lifang et al., 2005; Hua Wei, 2007; Yang Jingqiong, 2010). The influence of the propagation path is eliminated by finding the medium quality factor Q, that is calculated using multiple multi-seismic joint inversion methods by using the three segment geometry attenuation model (Atkinson et al., 1992, 1995, Huang Yulong et al., 2003), and using multiple multi-seismic inversion methods to calculate the site effects of stations (Moya et al., 2000; Liu Jie et al., 2003).

After obtaining the source spectrum, the genetic algorithm is used to fit the seismic source spectrum and the theoretical source spectrum, and then the zero-frequency limit Ω0 and the corner frequency fc are obtained (Holland, 1975; Moya et al., 2000; Liu Jie et al., 2003). The following equations can be used to solve the seismic parameters such as stress drop Δσ, seismic moment M0 and source radius R, since this paper focuses on the small-moderate earthquakes that satisfy the Brune disc model (Brune, 1970, 1971):

$ \Delta \sigma = \frac{7}{{16}} \cdot \frac{{{M_0}}}{{{R^3}}} $ (2)
$ {M_0} = \frac{{4\pi \rho v_{\rm{S}}^{\rm{3}}{\mathit{\Omega} _0}}}{{{R_{\theta \varphi }}}} $ (3)
$ R = \frac{{2.34{v_{\rm{S}}}}}{{2\pi {f_{\rm{c}}}}} $ (4)

Among these, ρ is the regional medium density of the study area, vS is the propagation velocity of S-wave, and ρ=2.7g/cm3, vS=3.5km/s in the Sichuan-Yunnan region (Ruan Xiang, 2007; Yang Jingqiong et al., 2010). Rθφ is the radiation pattern coefficient of the SH wave, averaging 0.41 (Stork et al., 2004).

2 THE DATA

This paper focuses on the stress-drop characteristics of aftershock activity at the early stage after the earthquake (within 3 months after the earthquake). According to the CENC earthquake catalog, as of November 3, 2014, the Ludian earthquake sequence had recorded a total of 236 ML≥2.5 aftershocks, among which there were 150 ML2.5-2.9 aftershocks, 79 ML3.0-3.9 aftershocks and 7 ML4.0-4.9 aftershocks. The largest magnitude aftershocks were two ML4.7 earthquakes that occurred on August 4, 2014 and September 10, 2014. At the same time, as of January 7, 2015, the Jinggu earthquake sequence had 289 aftershocks of ML≥2.5, among which 156 were ML2.5-2.9, 115 were ML3.0-3.9, 18 were ML4.0-4.9 and 2 were ML≥5.0 with magnitude ML 5.8, 5.9 that occurred successively on December 6, 2014.

In this study using the waveform data of the Ludian earthquake sequence recorded by four stations in the Yunnan Digital Seismic Network (two fixed stations and two mobile stations) and three stations in the Qiaojia seismic array were used. The waveform data of the Jinggu earthquake sequence recorded by four stations of Yunnan Digital Seismic Network (three fixed station and one mobile station) and the four reservoir stations (Fig. 1), that followed each earthquake was recorded by at least three stations, and there are at least three seismic records for each station (Liu Jie et al., 2003; Hua Wei et al., 2009). Seismic records with better waveforms and capable of 1.5 times SNR are used for this study.

3 CALCULATING RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 3.1 Seismic Wave Attenuation and the Site Response of Station

To calculate the seismic wave attenuation and the station site response, the fixed stations of the Yunnan Digital Seismic Network and the mobile station set up after the earthquake (Fig. 1) were selected in the vicinity of the earthquake sequence. For the Ludian area, 22 data items were recorded for the seven stations are selected, the calculation of the Q-value is Q(f)=189.8f0.4614; For the Jinggu area, 24 seismic data items recorded by 8 stations are selected, and the calculation of the Q value is Q(f)=223.8f0.3531. A relatively small Q0 and a high η value can be seen in the Ludian area, which reflects the regional difference of the Q-value in northeastern Yunnan and southwestern Yunnan, which may have some relationship with the geological structure. Western Yunnan (Mainly Baoshan block) on the upper crust is relatively low-speed area, but the lower crust is not found in the low-speed layer; however, the upper crust of the eastern part in Yunnan is a relatively high-speed area, the middle and lower crust have generally developed a low-speed layer, the same as the basic understanding of the low Q (attenuation fast) at low speed and the high-speed with high-Q (slow attenuation) (Su Youjin et al., 2006).

Figs. 2 and 3 are use of Moya et al. (2000) of the multiple multi-seismic source joint inversion method to obtain the site response of stations of the Ludian, Jinggu area. From Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, 15 stations have a site response value of 1 to 2. Among these, the site response of B04, L5301 stations in Ludian is relatively stable, there is no obvious frequency amplification, and it can be better recorded in the ground motion band. The site response of C05, ZAT, QIJ have a significant change in the frequency range of 1-20Hz, and the high frequency side is obviously reduced; at the same time, the site response of A03 and L5303 is increased from low frequency to high frequency and then rapidly decreases (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 The site response of stations in the Ludian source area The blue line is the result of a single earthquake; the red line is the result of the whole fitting

Fig. 3 The site response of stations in the Jinggu source area The blue line is the result of a single earthquake; the red line is the result of the whole fitting

The site response of SIC, JIG, LIC stations in the Jinggu area is are relatively low, and the site response of LIC, BAD is relatively stable. The site responses of XIC, JIG, L5309, LUL, SIM, HEP have a significant C change in the 1-20Hz frequency range, and the high frequency side significantly decreases (Fig. 3). Site response is mainly affected by the topography and geomorphology of the location of stations, the platform conditions of the stations and the local geological structure (Zhang Hongcai et al., 2015). Soft sedimentation sites have a greater effect on ground motion magnification, hard bedrocks are smaller andthe site response of the bedrock station is relatively flat in most frequency bands (Shearer, 1999). In addition, the local medium characteristics of the receiving sites have little difference in the absorption of the low frequency part of the source spectrum, but have a relatively strong absorption capacity for the high frequency part of the seismic wave, and thus it has a significant effect on the high frequency band of the seismic spectrum (Ye Jianqing, 1998). In the vicinity of the epicenter of the Ludian earthquake, the lithology of platform of QIJ station is conglomerate, ZAT station is basalt, and L5301 and L5303 stations are bedrock. The platform lithology of the other stations is not known. In the these rocks, the lowest hardness is the conglomerate, followed by the basalt, and the highest hardness is the bedrock, which is clearly visible from Fig. 2. The maximum amplification is more than 2 for the low-band in QIJ station, while the for other stations it is smaller. In the Jinggu area, the lithology of the platform of the SIM, JIG and LIC stations is known as sandstone, and the other lithology of the other stations is unknown. Therefore, the site response can not be simply compared by the lithology of the station platform. In addition, for the change of the site response in the high-frequency of each station, the combination of topography and geomorphology of the stations, local geological structure and other factors is needed for further analysis.

3.2 The Stress-drop of Aftershocks of the Ludian and Jinggu Earthquake Sequences

Based on the calculation of the Q of the area near the Ludian and Jinggu earthquake epicenter and the site response of the stations, the stress-drop of the two earthquake sequences within 90 days after the earthquake are respectively calculated as ML2.5-5.0 and the other calculation conditions are satisfied, among which there are 99 earthquakes in the Ludian earthquake sequence, with 173 earthquakes in the Jinggu earthquake sequence, respectively accounting for 42% and 60% of their earthquake sequences at the same time for the simultaneous earthquakes (Figs. 4, 5). From Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, we see that the earthquakes from which we can calculate stress-drop mainly cover the more prominent earthquake events in each time period, whether it is the Ludian earthquake sequence or the Jinggu earthquake sequence.

Fig. 4 The M-t diagram of the ML≥2.5 earthquakes, and in which can be used to calculate the stress-drop of the Ludian earthquake sequence (Red is earthquake events which can be used to calculate the stress-drop; black is the earthquake events which cannot be used to calculate the stress-drop)

Fig. 5 The M-t diagram of the ML≥2.5 earthquakes which can be used to calculate the stress-drop of the Jinggu earthquake sequence (Red is the earthquake events which can be used to calculate the stress-drop; black is the earthquake events which cant be used to calculate the stress-drop)

Fig. 6 shows the distribution statistics of stress-drop of the Ludian and Jinggu earthquake sequences. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the distribution of stress-drop of the Ludian earthquake sequence is more concentrated (less than 9MPa), and the earthquakes with stress-drop less than 6MPa account for about 94%, less than 4MPa. The numerical distribution of stress-drop in the Jinggu earthquake sequence is relatively discrete (mostly less than 12MPa). Compared with the Ludian earthquake, the earthquakes with stress-drop less than 9MPa account for about 83%, less than 6MPa and 4MPa respectively account for about 68% and 49%. The stress-drop system of aftershocks of the Jinggu earthquake sequence is higher than that of the Ludian earthquake sequence.

Fig. 6 The distribution statistics of stress-drop of Ludian and Jinggu earthquake sequences

Fig. 7 shows the relationship between the stress-drop and the magnitude of the two seismic sequences, and the confidence interval and the prediction interval under 90% confidence and the results of linear fitting are given. The 90% confidence interval represents a stress-drop for a given magnitude earthquake, where the average has a probability of 90% in this interval, and 90% of the predicted interval represents a stress-drop for a given magnitude earthquake. The stress-drop of a single earthquake has a probability of 90% in this interval. There is a trend of a stress-drop increase with intensifing magnitude, and the increase of the stress-drop of the Ludian earthquake sequence is obviously larger than that of the Jinggu earthquake sequence.

Fig. 7 The relationship between stress-drop and magnitude (a)Ludian earthquake sequence; (b)Jinggu earthquake sequence

Although the trend of stress-drop increasing with intensifing magnitude is clear, but as can be also seen from Fig. 7, the distribution of stress-drop with the magnitude of two earthquake sequences is very discrete, indicating that the relationship between stress-drop and magnitude is very complex. Fig. 8 shows the distribution of the mean stress-drop and its error. As seen from Fig. 8, the average stress-drop increases with increasing magnitude. It can be also seen from Fig. 8 that the results of the exponential fitting are better than those of linear fitting from the relationship between the mean stress-drop and the magnitude, but it is not clear whether this phenomenon has a clear physical meaning. From the error distribution relative to the average, the results show that the stress-drop of the Jinggu earthquake is more discrete than that of the Ludian earthquake. In fact, the stress drop of a small-moderate earthquake being positively correlated with magnitude seems to be a common phenomenon (Mayeda et al., 1996; Mori et al., 2003; Tusa et al., 2008; Zhao Cuiping et al., 2011; Hua Wei et al., 2011).

Fig. 8 The average stress-drop of the aftershocks of different magnitudes varies with the magnitude (a)Ludian earthquake sequence; (b)Jinggu earthquake sequence
The red dots are the mean values of the stress-drop of different magnitudes, and the error bars indicate the degree of dispersion about the measured data of the stress-drop of the aftershocks with this magnitude relative to the mean stress-drop; blue stars are the number of aftershocks with this magnitude. It can be seen that there are few earthquakes with high magnitude that cant give the size of the error bar; black lines are nonlinear exponential fitting results of the mean stress-drop with magnitude, the Ludian sequence is △σ=0.13495ML2.70275, the Jinggu sequence is △σ=0.61556ML1.91324
3.3 Comparative Analysis of Stress-drop in Aftershocks of Different Seismic Sections in the Ludian and Jinggu Earthquake Sequences

In order to deduct the influence of the magnitude, and to keep as much as possible enough earthquake samples to analyze, this paper respectively selects two magnitude scopes within ML2.5-2.9, ML3.0-3.4 for the comparison of the stress-drop of the earthquake from the seismic sequences change over time. Table 1 and Table 2 show the average and MAD of seismic stress-drop in ML2.5-2.9, ML3.0-3.4 of two sequences in 60 days after earthquake. From Table 1 and Table 2, the average stress-drop of the aftershocks of the Jinggu earthquake sequence is significantly higher than that of the Ludian earthquake sequence at the same magnitude. The stress-drop of the aftershocks indicates the level of stress in the source area after the mainshock (Jiang Haikun et al., 2015), which means that although the magnitudes of the main earthquakes of Ludian and Jinggu are similar, the stress level of the epicenter and the nearby area of the Jinggu earthquake is higher than that of the Ludian earthquake after the mainshock, which may be the root cause of Jinggu having a strong aftershock activity Ludian having weak aftershock activity after the mainshock. MAD is the deviation of the statistical data from the mean values. Column 6 of Table 1 and Table 2 shows that for earthquakes in the same magnitude range, the discrete degree of stress-drop of the Jinggu earthquake sequence is significantly higher than that of the Ludian earthquake. The greater the discrete degree within, the larger the magnitude.

Table 1 The average stress-drop of ML2.5-2.9 aftershocks in 60 days after the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake and Jinggu MS6.6 earthquake

Table 2 The average stress-drop of ML3.0-3.4 aftershocks in 60 days after the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake and Jinggu MS6.6 earthquake
3.4 Variation of Stress-drop of Aftershocks of Ludian and Jinggu Earthquake Sequences with Time

The stress-drop represents the stress change on the dislocation plane when the earthquake staggered instantly, the change of the stress-drop with time may reflect the change of the stress state (Hua Wei, 2007). We can indirectly understand the variation in local tectonic stress during the process of the earthquake sequence activity by analyzing the change of the earthquake stress-drop with time.

Fig. 9(a) and Fig. 9(b) show the variation of seismic stress-drop of the ML2.5-2.9, ML3.0-3.4 aftershocks in the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake with time in the 80 days after mainshock. Linear fitting results and confidence intervals and prediction intervals show under 90% confidence probability. It can be seen from Fig. 9, although the variation of the stress-drop of the ML2.5-2.9, ML3.0-3.4 aftershocks respectively showed a gradual recovery and continued decline trend after the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake, but not statistically significant. The results of linear fitting about the variation of seismic stress-drop with time show that the slope is very small, close to 0 (0.00768±0.00433, -0.01496±0.00437, respectively). This means that the stress-drop of aftershocks is almost constant with time from a statistical point of view. The energy released by the mainshock of the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake is unusually large relative to the energy released by the same magnitude earthquake (Zhao Zhonghe, 2014), so that the stress released in the source area is more abundant during the main rupture process. The stress change in the focal area after the earthquake is a process of weak adjustment and gradual recovery, which is also a possible reason for the weak aftershocks of the Ludian earthquake.

Fig. 9 The variation of seismic stress-drop of the aftershocks in the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake and Jinggu MS6.6 earthquake with time The vertical dots in (c) and (d) indicate the occurrence time of the M5.8 and M5.9 strong aftershocks

Fig. 9(c) and Fig. 9(d) show the variation of seismic stress-drop of the ML2.5-2.9, ML3.0-3.4 aftershocks in the Jinggu MS6.6 earthquake with time in the 80 days after the mainshock. It can be seen from Fig. 9(c) and Fig. 9(d) that at the beginning, the stress-drop of the aftershock after the Jinggu MS6.6 earthquake is fluctuating slowly down and showing a gradual decline in the trend, but it begins to turn up about 40 days after the earthquake (ML2.5-2.9 seismic segment began to change in about 34 days, ML3.0-3.4 seismic segment began to change in about 44 days). The apparent upward trend lasted for about 10 days, then the stress-drop was maintained at a relatively high value. The change of the stress-drop with time may indicate the process of stress adjustment in the earthquake area in a short term after the MS6.6 earthquake, that is, in the early stage of the aftershock, the stress state of the aftershock area decreased slowly with time; the local stress of the source area increased about thirty or forty days after the earthquake, and the stress-drop of the aftershocks gradually increased. Then, the stress was maintained at a relatively high value until the M5.8 strong aftershock occurred. From the point of view of mechanics, the stress drop of the small-moderate earthquakes in a high stress state is generally larger than that under a low stress state, which is a comprehensive reflection of the medium properties under a high stress state (Liu Lifang et al., 2010). At the same time, the aftershock frequency of this stage also showed a decreasing trend (Fig. 5), indicating that the aftershock area of the Jinggu earthquake seems to be reelocated in a relatively strong "locked" state until the M5.8 strong aftershock occurred on December 6. The precursor anomaly observation near the epicenter indicates that the water level of the Lancang well (about 116km from the Jinggu epicenter) rose significantly before the M5.8 earthquake. At the same time, the water radon of Dian-17 well of Dazhai, Puer station (about 87km from the Jinggu epicenter) suddenly rose 1.7Bq / L on October 23, reached a turning point of recovery on November 1, and turned up again on November 17. At the same time, the fluoride ion of Dian-17 well of Dazhai, Puer station also suddenly rose on October 28, then saw basic recovery on November 14 2. This indicates that the local area near the valley should indeed be in a short-term squeeze enhancement stage before the occurrence of M5.8 strong aftershocks.

2 The Consultation Report PPT of the Underground Fluid Group in the CENC on December 4, 2014.

After 16 hours of the M5.8 strong aftershock on December 6, the M5.9 strong aftershock occurred in the aftershock area of the Jinggu earthquake. It can be seen from Fig. 9(c) and 9(d) that the stress-drop of the aftershocks decreased rapidly after the M5.9 strong aftershock, and the declining trend of the stress-drop in the ML2.5-2.9 earthquake section lasted about 5 to 6 days. The declining trend of the stress-drop in the ML3.0-3.4 earthquake section lasted about 15 days, and then was maintained at a relatively low level. In fact, the aftershock activity of the Jinggu earthquake sequence tended to end after the M5.9 strong aftershocks, the frequency of the aftershocks rapidly decreased, and no ML≥2.5 earthquake occurred.

3.5 Spatial Difference of Stress-drop in Aftershocks of Ludian and Jinggu Earthquake Sequence

Fig. 10 shows the spatial distribution of the stress-drop of ML≥2.5 aftershocks on the 80th day after the earthquake of the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake. Fig. 10 shows that the distribution of the aftershocks of the Ludian earthquake sequence were characterized by the conjugate distribution of NNW and NEE directions (Wang Weilai et al., 2014; Cheng et al., 2015). Most of the aftershocks with high stress-drop were around the mainshock distribution. Compared with the NNW direction, NEE not only had less frequent of aftershocks, but the stress-drop of the aftershocks was also generally lower than that of the NNW. The reason may be that the rupture of the Ludian earthquake started along the NEE, and its fracture activity triggered faulting of the NNW. The rapid expansion of the NNW slowed down the further development of the NEE to rupture, eventually forming in conjugate rupture as a focus on the NNW to rupture (Zhang Yong et al., 2015; Xu Lisheng et al., 2014; Cheng Jia et al., 2016). From stress drop of the Ludian seismic sequence changes with time (Fig. 9(a), 9(b)), the stress-drop of the Ludian earthquake sequence was a process of gradual recovery with time, and the stress-drop of the aftershocks distributed along the NNW fault was generally higher than that of the NEE.

Fig. 10 The spatial distribution of the stress-drop of ML≥2.5 aftershocks on the 80th day after the earthquake of the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake The red star denotes the mainshock; black denote the earthquakes which haven't calculate the stress-drop

Fig. 11 shows the spatial distribution of aftershock stress-drop at different time periods of the Jinggu M6.6 earthquake sequence. Fig. 11(a) shows that the aftershock distribution had certain segmentation characteristics before the M5.8 strong aftershocks on December 6, and can be divided into three segments, namely, northwest, middle and southwest. The high stress-drop seismicity is mainly distributed in the southeast of the mainshock, that is, the middle and southwest segments of the distribution of the aftershock sequence. From another point of view, the vast majority of earthquakes with high stress-drop occured around M5.8 strong aftershocks, and the stress-drop of aftershocks in the northwest edge of the mainshock were relatively low. This indicates that the stress level of the southeastern side of the mainshock was relatively high after the M6.6 earthquake, which may also be a reason for the continuous occurrence of M5.8 and M5.9 strong aftershocks in this area. It can be seen from Fig. 11(b) that the aftershocks are mainly distributed near the strong aftershocks in the southeast of the mainshock, and there are further signs of extending southward. The high stress-drop is mainly distributed near the strong aftershocks and its southeast.

Fig. 11 The spatial distribution of the stress-drop of ML≥2.5 aftershocks of the Jinggu M6.6 earthquake (a) From mainshock to the MS5.8 strong aftershock occurring on 02:43 a.m. December 6;
(b) 20 days after the MS5.9 strong aftershock occurring on 18:20 p.m. December 6
Red star denotes the mainshock; blue star denotes the MS5.8 strong aftershock, green star denotes the MS5.9 strong aftershock; black circle denote earthquakes which haven't calculate the stress-drop
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

(1) At present, the relationship between stress-drop and magnitude is controversial. Some researchers believe that the large earthquake sequence usually has strong stress-drop changes, but the stress-drop of the whole seismic sequence is rarely dependent on the seismic moment, that is, the stress-drop is similar to the constant; it is constant with the change of the seismic moment (Shearer et al., 2006; Hardebeck et al., 2009; Allmann et al., 2007, 2009; Annemarie et al., 2011). Other researchers suggest that the stress is dropping with magnitude increasement (Mayeda et al., 1996; Mori et al., 2003; Tusa et al., 2008; Zhao Cuiping et al., 2011; Hua Wei et al., 2012). At the same time, Chen Yuntai et al. (2000) have pointed out that "large" earthquakes have different situation from "small" earthquakes, i.e., for "large" earthquakes with different seismic moments, the stress-drop is close to the constant, and the magnitude of the earthquakes is distinguished from the rupture area and the dislocation; for "small" earthquakes with different seismic moments, the stress-drop increases with increasing magnitude (or seismic moment). The stress-drop in the magnitude range of this study shows a tendency to increase with increasing magnitude. Therefore, the impact of magnitude needs to be eliminated in the application of the stress-drop method.

(2) Although the magnitude of the Ludian mainshock is equal to that of the Jinggu mainshock, the average stress-drop of the Jinggu earthquake sequence is higher than that of the Ludian earthquake sequence in the same magnitude range, which reflects that the stress level of the Jinggu source and the surrounding area is significantly higher than that of the Ludian after the mainshock. This may be the fundamental reason for the Jinggu sequence showing strong aftershocks after the mainshock and the activity of Ludian aftershock being significantly weaker. At the same time, the degree of dispersion of the aftershock stress-drop of the Jinggu earthquake sequence is also higher than that of Ludian earthquake sequence in the same magnitude range. The greater magnitude, the more obvious of the difference is. There is more evidence that the stress-drop is higher in the Jinggu earthquake area; the M6.6 mainschock on October 7 and the M5.8 and M5.9 earthquakes on December 6 occurred on the "Hope" day of solid tide modulation and have obvious tidal modulation characteristics, indicating that the Jinggu earthquake area has a high stress background 3.

3 Rescue Surveillance Report of CENC on December 7, 2014([2014] Pro 40).

(3) In the case of the variation of stress-drop with time, the stress-drop of aftershocks is almost unchanged for the Ludian earthquake sequence with no strong aftershocks after the mainshock. Combined with the analysis of the characteristics of the mainshock energy release, this may be due to the huge release of the mainshock energy, as the stress release is relatively adequate and the change of the source stress after the mainshock is only weakly adjusted and gradually restored. This may also be the reason for the weak aftershocks of the Ludian earthquake.

Before the occurrence of the M5.8 strong aftershocks in the Jinggu earthquake sequence, there was a transformation process of the stress-drop in the "slowing down-turning up-maintaining a high value" sequence after the mainshock, which showed the local stress at the source recurrence of extrusion enhancement after a period of time after the mainshock, then the stress-drop of aftershock increased and was maintained at a relatively high value until the M5.8 strong aftershock occurred. At the same time, the stress-drop decreased rapidly and remained relatively stable after the occurrence of the M5.9 strong aftershock, indicating that the stress of the focal area may have been fully released after the M5.9 strong aftershock. Thus, the change of post-earthquake stress drop with time may have some indication of subsequent strong aftershocks.

From view of fracture mechanics, more and more micro-cracks in the rock produced many tensile fractures under the action of differential stress before cracking, resulting in the expansion of rock volume. As long as there is differential stress, this phenomenon will still appear even under high confining pressure conditions (Brace et al., 1966). According to the expansion-diffusion model (Nur, 1972; Scholz et al., 1973), the expansion of the original rock mass before the strong earthquakes reduces the original pore saturation pressure, and the shear capacity of the rock mass increases with decreasing pore pressure, resulting in the phenomenon of expansion and hardening of the rock, which increases frictional resistance, and thus the fault is temporarily stabilized (the time of the aftershock is also significantly reduced at that time). At the same time, the water in the surrounding rock mass gradually penetrates the unsaturated zone, and the frictional resistance increases as time passes, the shear capacity of the rock mass decreases and the earthquake occurs. Therefore, the fluid plays an important role in the expansion-diffusion model. The underground fluid in the Jinggu area may be enriched, and the upper crust of the Jinggu earthquake area is composed of cretaceous sandstone and mudstone (Cai Linsun et al., 2002), allowing the presence of a large amount of aqueous fluid during its formation. On the other hand, the epicenter of the Jinggu mainshock is only about 30km from the suture zone of the Lancangjiang river, and it is possible for the upper crust to trap a large amount of aqueous fluid in the formation of the suture zone of the Lancangjiang river (Li Yonghua et al., 2014).

In the spatial variation of the stress-drop, most aftershocks with high stress-drop value in the Ludian earthquake sequence are around the mainshock distribution. In the Jinggu earthquake sequence, before the M5.8 earthquake occurred, most of the high stress-drop aftershocks occurred around the strong aftershock of M5.8 which indicated that the stress level of this area was relatively high after the occurrence of the M6.0 mainshock, and this may be the reason for continuous occurrence of the M5.8, M5.9 strong aftershocks in this region after the mainshock. However, the high stress-drop values of the aftershocks are around the strong aftershocks after the M5.9 aftershocks. This further shows that most of the abnormal high-value stress drop is not around the occurrence of strong earthquake distribution, but tends to be distributed in a certain region if a strong earthquake occurs, so the stress level in this region is relatively high, and there is then a possibility of strong earthquake occurrence in this area.

The change of stress-drop with time is related to the occurrence of strong earthquakes in the earthquake sequence. Its variation in space also seems to have some correlation with the location of strong earthquakes, and tracking the temporal and spatial variation of the aftershock stress-drop may provide a certain reference for the judgment of strong aftershocks.However, proof from more earthquake cases is needed because the information in this article is limited.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks to the guidance of research professor Hua Wei, and to Liu Lifang and He Jiabin for their help in the process of collecting waveform data. Thanks to Song Jin, Yang Wen and Deng Fei for their useful help and discussion in this study.

REFERENCES
Allmann B.P., Shearer P.M. Global variations of stress drop for moderate to large earthquakes[J]. J Geophys Res, 2009, 114(B1): 310–332.
Allmann B.P., Shearer P.M. Spatial and temporal stress drop variations in small earthquakes near Parkfield, California[J]. J Geophys Res, 2007, 112(B4): 1–10.
Annemarie B., Satoshi I., Geman P., et al. Variability in earthquake stress drop and apparent stress[J]. Geophys Res Lett, 2011, 38(6): 122–133.
Atkinson G.M., Boore D. New ground motion relations for eastern North America[J]. Bull Seism Soc Am, 1995, 85(1): 17–30.
Atkinson G.M., Mereu R.F. The shape of ground motion attenuation curves in Southeastern Canada[J]. Bull Seism Soc Am, 1992, 82(2): 14–31.
Brace W.F., Paulding J.B.W., Scholz C. Dilatancy in the fracture of crystalline rocks[J]. J Geophys Res, 1966, 71(16): 3939–3953. DOI:10.1029/JZ071i016p03939.
Brune J.N. Correction[J]. J Geophys Res, 1971, 76(20): 5002. DOI:10.1029/JB076i020p05002.
Brune J.N. Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic waves from earthquakes[J]. J Geophys Res, 1970, 75(75): 4997–5009.
Cai Linsun, Li Xinglin. Geology of Yunnan Province [M]. (see: Ma Lifang) China Geological Atlas, Beijing: Geological Publishing House, 2002(in Chinese).
Chael E. Spectral scaling of earthquakes in the Miramichi region of New Brunswick[J]. Bull Seism Soc Am, 1987, 77(2): 347–365.
Chen Xuezhong. Estimation of the stress levels in the focal region before and after the 2001 M8.1 western Kunlun mountain pass earthquake[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 2005, 27(6): 605–609.
Chen Yuntai, Wu Zhongliang, Wang Peide, et al. Digital Seismology[M]. Beijing: Seismological Press, 2000
Cheng J., Wu Z., Liu J., et al. Preliminary report on the 3 August 2014, MW6.2/MS6.5 Lu Dian, Yunnan-Sichuan border, south-west China, earthquake[J]. Seism Res Lett, 2015, 86(3): 750–763. DOI:10.1785/0220140208.
Cheng Jia, Xu Xiwei, Liu Jie. Cause and rupture characteristics of the 2014 Ludian 6.5 mainshock and its aftershock distribution using the Coulomb stress changes[J]. Chinese J Geophys, 2016, 59(2): 556–567.
Hardebeck J.L, Allegra A. Earthquake stress drops and inferred fault strength on the Hayward fault, East San Francisco Bay, California[J]. Bull Seism Soc Am, 2009, 99(3): 1801–1814. DOI:10.1785/0120080242.
Holland J.H. Adaptation in Nature and Artificial System[M]. Ann Arbor: University of Michugan Press, 1975
Hua Wei, Chen Zhangli, Zheng Sihua, et al. Difference existing in characteristics of source parameters between reservoir induced seismicity and tectonic earthquake— A case study of Longtan reservoir[J]. Progress in Geophysics, 2012, 27(3): 924–935.
Hua Wei, Chen Zhangli, Zheng Sihua. A study on segmentation characteristics of aftershock source parameters of Wenchuan MS8.0 earthquake in 2008[J]. Chinese J Geophys, 2009, 52(2): 365–371.
Hua Wei. Small and Medium Earth Seismic Source Parameter Calibration Relationship [D]. Doctoral thesis. Beijing: Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, 2007(in Chinese with English abstract)
Huang Yulong, Zheng Sihua, Liu Jie, et al. Attenuation of ground motion and site responsein Guangdong region[J]. Chinese J Geophys, 2003, 46(1): 54–61.
Jiang Haikun, Yang Maling, Fu Hong, et al. The Reference Guide of Determining the Trend after the Earthquake[M]. Beijing: Seismological Press, 2015
Li Yonghua, Xu Xiaoming, Zhang Enhui, et al. Three-dimensional crustal structure beneath setibtan plateau and its seismotectonic implications for the Ludian and Jinggu earthquake in Yunnan[J]. Seismology and Geology, 2014, 36(4): 1204–1216.
Liu Jie, Zheng Sihua, Huang Yulong. The inversion of non-elasticity coefficient, source parameters, site response using genetic algorithms[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 2003, 25(2): 211–218.
Liu Lifang, Liu Jie, Su Youjin, et al. Study on non-elasticity attenuation and source parameters of Shidian swarm in 2001[J]. Earthquake Research in China, 2005, 21(4): 475–485.
Liu Lifang, Su Youjin, Liu Jie, et al. Study on temporal and spatial features of stress drop for low-to-moderate earthquakes in Yunnan and Sichuan region[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 2010, 33(3): 314–319.
Mayeda K., Walter W.R. Moment, energy, stress drop, and source spectra of western United States earthquakes from regional coda envelopes[J]. J Geophys Res, 1996, 101(11): 195–208.
Mori J., Abercrombie R.E., Kanamori H. Stress drops and radiated energies of aftershocks of the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake[J]. J Geophys Res, 2003, 108(B11): 1–13.
Moya C.A., Aguirre J., Irikura K. Inversion of source parameters and site effects from strong ground motion records using genetic algorithms[J]. Bull Seism Soc Am, 2000, 90(4): 977–992. DOI:10.1785/0119990007.
Nur A. Dilatancy, pore fluids, and premonitory variations of tS/tP travel times[J]. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 1972, 62(5): 1217–1222.
Ruan Xiang. Research of Focal Parameter of Medium and Small Earthquakes in Sichuan and Yunnan [D]. Doctoral thesis. Lanzhou Institute of Seismology, 2007(in Chinese with English abstract)
Scholz C.H., Sykes L.R., Aggarwal Y.P. Earthquake prediction: A physical basis[J]. Science, 1973, 181(4102): 803–810. DOI:10.1126/science.181.4102.803.
Shearer P.M., Prieto G. A., Hauksson E. Comprehensive analysis of earthquake source spectra in southern California[J]. J Geophys Res, 2006, 111(B6): 3197–3215.
Shearer P.M. Intruduction to Seismology[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999
Stork A.L., Ito H. Source parameter scaling for small earthquakes observed at the western Nagano 800-m-deep borehole, central Japan[J]. Bull Seism. Soc. Am., 2004, 94(5): 1781–1794. DOI:10.1785/012002214.
Su Youjin, Liu Jie, Zheng Sihua, et al. Q value of anelastic S-wave attenuation in Yunnan region[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 2006, 28(2): 206–212.
Tusa G., Gresta S. Frequency-dependent attenuation of P waves and estimation of earthquake source parameters in Southeastern Sicily, Italy[J]. Bull Seism Soc Am, 2008, 98(6): 2772–2794. DOI:10.1785/0120080105.
Wang Weilai, Wu Jianping, Fang Lihua, et al. Double diference location of the Ludian MS6.5 earthquake sequences in Yunnan Province in 2014[J]. Chinese J Geophys, 2014, 57(9): 3042–3051.
Xu Lisheng, Zang Xu, Yan Chuan, et al. Analysis of the Love waves for the source complexity of the Ludian MS6.2 earthquake[J]. Chinese J Geophys, 2014, 57(9): 3006–3017.
Yang Jingqiong, Yang Zhousheng, Liu Lifang, et al. Study on the source parameters of the Yingjiang MS5.9 earthquake sequence in 2008[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 2010, 33(4): 308–312, 376.
Ye Jianqing. Analysis and studies of site response for Lijiang earthquake[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 1998, 21(2): 3–9.
Zhang Hongcai, Xu Jiajun, Chen Zhiyong. Site response of Fujian seismic monitoring stations based on H/V spectrum ratio method[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 2015, 37(6): 1045–1058.
Zhang Yong, Chen Yuntai, Xu Lisheng. The 2014 MW6.1 Ludian, Yunnan, earthquake: A complex conjugated ruptured earthquake[J]. Chinese J Geophys, 2015, 58(1): 153–162.
Zhao Cuiping, Chen Zhangli, Hua Wei, et al. Study on source parameters of small to moderate earthquakes in the main seismic active regions, Chinese mainland[J]. Chinese J Geophys, 2011, 54(6): 1478–1489.
Zhao Zhonghe. Seismic energy of Ludian M6.5 earthquake, August 3, 2014[J]. Recent Developments in World Seismology, 2014, 38(9): 24–28.
Zhong Yuyun, Zhang Fan, Zhang Zhenfeng, et al. Possibility of earlier judgement on seismic tendency after strong earthquake based on apparent stress and stress drop[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering, 2004, 24(1): 8–14.
景谷6.6级、鲁甸6.5级地震序列应力降变化对比研究
周少辉1, 蒋海昆2, 曲均浩1     
1. 山东省地震局,济南市历城区港西路2066号,济南 250102;
2. 中国地震台网中心,北京 100045
摘要:利用云南2014年10月7日景谷6.6级、8月3日鲁甸6.5级地震序列的波形与震相资料,消除区域地震波衰减与台站场地响应后,计算得到2次地震序列的应力降。结果显示,在研究所涉及的震级范围内,应力降呈现出随震级增大而增大的趋势。为尽可能消除震级对应力降的影响,对比相同震级档地震的应力降,结果显示景谷地震序列的平均应力降明显高于鲁甸地震,这可能与2次6.5级左右地震后震源区的应力状态有关。从序列余震应力降的时、空变化对比来看,景谷6.6级地震后至12月6日5.8、5.9级强余震发生前,应力降变化呈现先缓慢下降、进而转折升高并持续高值的变化过程;同时,高应力降地震在空间上主要集中于5.8级强余震区域。这表明主震发生后经过一个较短期的调整之后,5.8级强余震震源区的应力环境可能持续增强。5.8、5.9级强余震发生后,地震序列应力降快速下降至相对稳定状态。表明2次6级左右强余震发生后,震源附近区域应力得到一定程度的释放,应力环境降低,地震序列活动也趋于结束。对于后续没有强余震发生的鲁甸地震序列,余震应力降小于景谷地震序列相同震级档地震的平均应力降,同时,主震后余震序列的应力降在时间上几乎未发生太大的变化;结合主震能量释放特点推测,震源区的应力在主震破裂过程中已得到较多的释放,主震后震源区应力变化呈现逐渐恢复的过程,这可能是鲁甸地震余震活动明显较弱,后续亦未有较强余震发震的原因之一。
关键词应力降    余震序列    鲁甸地震    景谷地震