zhenbo

ISSN 2096-7780 CN 10-1665/P

腾冲中心站井水位与水温对缅甸MS7.9地震的同震响应特征分析

Analysis of co-seismic response characteristics of the water level and water temperature at Tengchong center station to Myanmar MS7.9 earthquake

  • 摘要: 2025 年3 月28 日缅甸发生MS7.9地震,腾冲中心站辖区内大部分流体观测井记录到显著的同震响应特征。通过分析腾冲中心站水位水温观测数据,揭示了地下流体在地震触发下的动态响应规律。结果表明:水位同震响应呈现多元形态,其中3口井表现为阶升型变化,2口井呈现震荡型响应,1口井出现阶降后震荡特征,反映了地震波引发的孔隙压力波动与水动力交换过程;水温响应以阶升型与震荡型为主,另有2口井响应信号较弱,显示热信号对地震动的敏感性低于压力信号。研究进一步可知,腾冲中心站水位水温观测的同震响应能力差异显著;水温响应因受水体热交换过程控制,表现出1~2 min的滞后性及复杂的恢复特征;井水位同震响应主要受地质构造环境与水文地质条件制约,而水温响应机制涉及地震波诱导的水动力模式、热对流效应及传感器布设参数等多因素耦合,其机理更为复杂。通过对辖区内水温水位同震响应特征的分析,可为流体井的优化布设及地下流体异常信号的识别提供理论依据。

     

    Abstract: On March 28, 2025, an MS7.9 earthquake occurred in Myanmar. Significant co-seismic responses were recorded at most of the groundwater observation wells at Tengchong center station. By analyzing observational data of the water level and water temperature at Tengchong center station, the dynamic responses of groundwater during an earthquake were revealed. The results showed that the co-seismic response of the water level presented multiple forms, with three wells showing step-up changes, two wells exhibiting an oscillating response, and one well displaying oscillating characteristics after step-down, reflecting the pore pressure fluctuations and hydrodynamic exchange process caused by seismic waves. Although the water temperature response was mainly step-up and oscillating for most of the wells, the response signals of two other wells were weak, indicating that the thermal signal is less sensitive than the pressure signal to ground motion. Further analysis revealed that the co-seismic response abilities of the water level and water temperature observed at Tengchong center station differed significantly. The water temperature response was controlled by the heat exchange process of the water body, showing a lag of 1~2 minutes and complex recovery characteristics. The co-seismic response of the well water level was mainly restricted by the geological tectonic environment and hydrogeological conditions. By contrast, the water temperature response mechanism was more complex and involved the coupling of multiple factors, such as the seismic wave-induced hydrodynamic model, thermal convection effect, and sensor layout parameters. Our findings from this analysis of the co-seismic response characteristics of the water level and water temperature in the area provide a theoretical basis for the optimal layout of groundwater wells and identification of abnormal underground water signals.

     

/

返回文章
返回