| Abstrakt: |
The Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake that occurred in 2015 is the largest thrust event in the middle of the main Himalayan thrust fault zone (MHT) in the past 81 yr. Its impact on the regional tectonic stress state and future seismic risks is a significant scientific issue worthy of in-depth analyses. In this study, we inverted the planar fault-slip model (the planar model), the flat-ramp fault-slip model (the flat-ramp model) and the double flat-ramp fault-slip model (the double flat-ramp model) to analyze the effect of the fault geometry, based on the steepest descent method (SDM) and the layered earth model. Compared with the flat-ramp model, the planar model exhibits a wider slip distribution in the down-dip direction of the main rupture zone, whereas the double flat-ramp model shows a larger coseismic slip on the middle ramp at the depth of 7.5-11.5 km. Those slip differences produce larger stress shadow areas in the above models, but for a blind thrust event induced by a low-dip thrust fault, this does not significantly change the distribution mode of coseismic Coulomb stress change (Δ CFS) in the three models. Namely, there is an obvious stress release in the main rupture but an obvious stress loading in the up-dip and down-dip directions of the main rupture zone. Based on the Burgers rheological model, we calculated the postseismic viscoelastic Coulomb stress change (Δ CFS) and the cumulative Coulomb stress change (Δ CFS) induced by the Gorkha earthquake in the flat-ramp model and comparatively analyzed the evolution pattern of coseismic and postseismic stresses. Our results indicate that the variation trend of postseismic stress in the lithosphere is opposite to that of the coseismicΔ CFS. The postseismic viscoelastic relaxation promotes the slip of the flat-ramp structure at the depth of 10-25 km, and the stress unloads in the shallow and deep part simultaneously. As a blind thrust event, the coseismicΔ CFSstill plays a dominant role in the shallow part after 50 yr, whereas the loadingΔ CFSin the deep part of the MHT is greatly weakened by the postseismicΔ CFS. Seismic risks still exist in the unruptured area on the west side of the mainshock and the shallow Main Frontal thrust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
