Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; August 1982; v. 72; no. 4; p. 1085-1092
© 1982 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ZHU, C.
Right arrow Articles by CHEN, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Modeling focal parameters for the magnitude 5.3 earthquake of the Xinfengjiang Reservoir area, People's Republic of China

CHENGNAN ZHU, YUQUAN LIU, CHUNYONG WANG, RUXI LU and JIANDE CHEN

THE SEISMOLOGICAL BUREAU OF YUNNAN PROVINCE, KUNMING, People's Republic of China
THE SEIMOLOGICAL BUREAU OF GUANGDONG PROVINCE People's Republic of China

Abstract

In this paper, the "random test-motion adjustment" method was used for the adjustment of the triangulation net of the Xinfengjiang Reservoir earthquake area, China, and for the inversion of the focal parameters of the earthquake of magnitude 5.3. Retriangulation and leveling data of the earthquake area were thus processed. The estimated focal parameters of the earthquake are: strike, NE 62°; dip, SE at 59°; length of the fault, 4.7 km; depth of the upper boundary, 0.45 km; depth of the lower boundary, 4.5 km; dip-slip dislocation, 73.4 mm; strike-slip dislocation, 25.5 mm; seismic moment, Mo, 2.2 x 1024 dyne-cm; stress drop ({Delta}{sigma}), 12 bars; and the lower limit of the strain energy released (E) 1.2 x 1019 ergs. It was predominantly a normal fault. This paper concludes that the regional stress field provided the main force of the shock, whereas the stress field due to hydraulic pressure contributed the inducing force.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Seismological Society of America