论文部分内容阅读
长期活动的圣安德列斯断层是从1906年旧金山地震发现的。沿着大规模地壳破裂带发生走向滑移运动的概念,就是根据这一事件首次建立起来的。根据这次地震的分析,提出了弹性变形理论。1926年,有人提出圣安德列斯的累计水平位移可达数浬,但一般都认为如此巨大的变位是无法解释的。1953年通过更新世至白垩纪岩石横切断裂地层对比所提出的新证据,要求几十乃到几百浬的走向滑移变位。由此引起了进一步的争论和研究,终于在1968年得到普遍承认。自从1965年提出圣安德列斯为一转换断层并纳入板块匿造机制以来,对地壳发生大规模水平运动的保留意见实际上已经消声构迹。阻碍人们接受圣安德列斯发生公里级走向滑移的最重要的一个因素,是对断层错距和断层滑移这两个概念的长期混乱。Lawson、Noble、Taliaferro、Hill 和 Dibblee及 Wilson 等在解释这一断层方面起着最重要的作用。Gilberr 在地震后所作的研究再次证明他是一位伟大的地质学家。旧金山地震对于认识圣安德列斯断层起着关健作用,但是根据这一地壳构造的性质,地质历史及其意义的分析,现在面临着比任何时候都多的问题。现在对这一断层在局部构造和全球构造中所起作用的一致意见,肯定要为革命性的新模式所修正。
The long-standing San Andres Fault was discovered from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The concept of a slipping movement along a large crustal rupture zone was first established on the basis of this event. According to the analysis of the earthquake, the theory of elastic deformation was proposed. In 1926, it was suggested that the accumulated horizontal displacement of San Andrés could amount to several 浬, but it is generally considered that such a huge displacement can not be explained. The new evidence put forward in 1953 by stratigraphic correlation between the Pleistocene and Cretaceous rocks required that the strike-slip displacement of tens to hundreds of 浬 be required. This caused further controversy and research and was finally recognized in 1968. Since 1965 when the San Andres was proposed as a conversion fault and an anonymous mechanism has been included in the plateau, the reservation of large-scale horizontal crustal movement has virtually disappeared. One of the most important factors hindering people from accepting the mile-slip of San Andres is the long-standing disruption of the concepts of fault dislocation and fault slip. Lawson, Noble, Taliaferro, Hill and Dibblee and Wilson played the most important role in explaining this fault. Gilberr’s research after the earthquake proved once again that he is a great geologist. The San Francisco earthquake played a key role in understanding the San Andreas Fault, but analysis of the nature of the crustal structure, its geological history and its significance now faces more problems than ever before. The consensus now on the role that this fault has to play in the local structure and the global structure must be amending to a revolutionary new model.