The 2014 Mw 6.1 Ludian Earthquake: The Application of RADARSAT-2 SAR Interferometry and GPS for this Conjugated Ruptured Event

• Main Authors: Yufen Niu, Shuai Wang, Wu Zhu, Qin Zhang, Zhong Lu, Chaoying Zhao, Wei Qu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2019-12-01
• Series: Remote Sensing
• Subjects: ludian earthquake; conjugate fault; interferometric synthetic aperture radar; slip distribution
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/1/99

Although the Zhaotong−Ludian fault is a seismically active zone located in the boundary between the Sichuan−Yunnan block and the South China block, it has not experienced a large earthquake greater than Mw 7 since at least 1700. On 3 August, 2014, an Mw 6.1 earthquake (the Ludian earthquake) ruptured the Zhaotong active belt in Ludian County, Yunnan province, China. This earthquake was the largest earthquake recorded in the region since 2000, and it provides us with a unique opportunity to study the active tectonics in the region. The analysis of the aftershocks showed that two conjugate faults could have been involved in the event. We first used Global Positioning System (GPS) data and C-band RADARSAT-2 imagery to map the coseismic surface deformation. We then inverted the derived coseismic deformation for the slip distribution based on the constructed conjugate fault model. Finally, the coulomb failure stress due to the Ludian earthquake was estimated to investigate the potential seismic hazards in this region. Our investigations showed that the Ludian earthquake was mainly a bilateral rupture event. The major slip of the main shock was located at depths of 0−5 km, which is close but does not superpose with the aftershocks that are mostly located at depths of 5−20 km. Interestingly, the seismic moment released by the aftershocks (6.9 × 10¹⁸ N∙m) was greater than that of the main shock (2.6 × 10¹⁸ N∙m). This evidence suggests that the accumulated elastic strain at depths of 0−20 km could have been fully released by the Ludian earthquake and its subsequent aftershocks. Furthermore, our analysis of the coulomb failure stress changes due to the main shock showed that the aftershocks could be the result of dynamic triggering rather than static triggering.