2005/06/20 12:21:41 36.95N 88.96W 4 3.9 Kentucky
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS Felt reports page for Central and Southeastern US
The focal mechanism was determined using broadband seismic waveforms. The location of the event and the station distribution are given in Figure 1.
|
|
|
|
STK = 320
DIP = 80
RAKE = 15
MW = 3.60
HS = 4
Because of the focal mechanism, strike-slip, and the shallow depth, the Rayleigh waves were very small. Both spectral amplitude and waveform inversions yielded broad maxima. the rpeferred solution is that which is compatible with the shallow depth of about 4 km estiamted by the University of Memphis which has a dense newtork of short period seismographs in the region
The program wvfgrd96 was used with good traces observed at short distance to determine the focal mechanism, depth and seismic moment. This technique requires a high quality signal and well determined velocity model for the Green functions. To the extent that these are the quality data, this type of mechanism should be preferred over the radiation pattern technique which requires the separate step of defining the pressure and tension quadrants and the correct strike.
The observed and predicted traces are filtered using the following gsac commands:
hp c 0.04 3 lp c 0.13 3The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT
WVFGRD96 0.5 325 65 30 3.56 0.3227
WVFGRD96 1.0 325 65 30 3.58 0.3337
WVFGRD96 2.0 320 80 20 3.57 0.3514
WVFGRD96 3.0 320 80 20 3.58 0.3651
WVFGRD96 4.0 320 80 15 3.60 0.3769
WVFGRD96 5.0 320 80 15 3.62 0.3845
WVFGRD96 6.0 320 80 15 3.63 0.3891
WVFGRD96 7.0 315 80 10 3.65 0.3916
WVFGRD96 8.0 315 80 10 3.67 0.3932
WVFGRD96 9.0 315 80 10 3.69 0.3934
WVFGRD96 10.0 315 80 15 3.70 0.3899
WVFGRD96 11.0 315 80 10 3.72 0.3843
WVFGRD96 12.0 315 80 10 3.73 0.3785
WVFGRD96 13.0 315 80 10 3.74 0.3707
WVFGRD96 14.0 315 80 10 3.75 0.3618
WVFGRD96 15.0 315 80 10 3.76 0.3518
WVFGRD96 16.0 315 80 10 3.77 0.3406
WVFGRD96 17.0 315 80 10 3.78 0.3290
WVFGRD96 18.0 315 80 10 3.78 0.3173
WVFGRD96 19.0 315 80 10 3.79 0.3061
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 9.0 315 80 10 3.69 0.3934
The mechanism correspond to the best fit is
|
|
|
The best fit as a function of depth is given in the following figure:
|
|
|
The comparison of the observed and predicted waveforms is given in the next figure. The red traces are the observed and the blue are the predicted. Each observed-predicted componnet is plotted to the same scale and peak amplitudes are indicated by the numbers to the left of each trace. The number in black at the rightr of each predicted traces it the time shift required for maximum correlation between the observed and predicted traces. This time shift is required because the synthetics are not computed at exactly the same distance as the observed and because the velocity model used in the predictions may not be perfect. A positive time shift indicates that the prediction is too fast and should be delayed to match the observed trace (shift to the right in this figure). A negative value indicates that the prediction is too slow. The bandpass filter used in the processing and for the display was
hp c 0.04 3 lp c 0.13 3
|
|
|
|
| Focal mechanism sensitivity at the preferred depth. The red color indicates a very good fit to thewavefroms. Each solution is plotted as a vector at a given value of strike and dip with the angle of the vector representing the rake angle, measured, with respect to the upward vertical (N) in the figure. |
NODAL PLANES
STK= 317.38
DIP= 80.34
RAKE= -15.22
OR
STK= 49.99
DIP= 75.00
RAKE= -169.99
DEPTH = 3.0 km
Mw = 3.60
Best Fit 0.8735 - P-T axis plot gives solutions with FIT greater than FIT90
 |
The P-wave first motion data for focal mechanism studies are as follow:
Sta Az(deg) Dist(km) First motion UTMT 173 68 eP_+ PVMO 228 89 eP_X USIN 45 161 eP_- FVM 312 173 eP_- OLIL 21 212 iP_C SLM 329 218 eP_X MPH 204 221 eP_- BLO 40 327 eP_X
Surface wave analysis was performed using codes from Computer Programs in Seismology, specifically the multiple filter analysis program do_mft and the surface-wave radiation pattern search program srfgrd96.
Digital data were collected, instrument response removed and traces converted
to Z, R an T components. Multiple filter analysis was applied to the Z and T traces to obtain the Rayleigh- and Love-wave spectral amplitudes, respectively.
These were input to the search program which examined all depths between 1 and 25 km
and all possible mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
| Pressure-tension axis trends. Since the surface-wave spectra search does not distinguish between P and T axes and since there is a 180 ambiguity in strike, all possible P and T axes are plotted. First motion data and waveforms will be used to select the preferred mechanism. The purpose of this plot is to provide an idea of the possible range of solutions. The P and T-axes for all mechanisms with goodness of fit greater than 0.9 FITMAX (above) are plotted here. |
|
| Focal mechanism sensitivity at the preferred depth. The red color indicates a very good fit to the Love and Rayleigh wave radiation patterns. Each solution is plotted as a vector at a given value of strike and dip with the angle of the vector representing the rake angle, measured, with respect to the upward vertical (N) in the figure. Because of the symmetry of the spectral amplitude rediation patterns, only strikes from 0-180 degrees are sampled. |
The distribution of broadband stations with azimuth and distance is
Sta Az(deg) Dist(km) UTMT 173 68 PVMO 228 89 USIN 45 161 FVM 312 173 OLIL 21 212 SLM 329 218 MPH 204 221 BLO 40 327 UALR 233 389
Since the analysis of the surface-wave radiation patterns uses only spectral amplitudes and because the surfave-wave radiation patterns have a 180 degree symmetry, each surface-wave solution consists of four possible focal mechanisms corresponding to the interchange of the P- and T-axes and a roation of the mechanism by 180 degrees. To select one mechanism, P-wave first motion can be used. This was not possible in this case because all the P-wave first motions were emergent ( a feature of the P-wave wave takeoff angle, the station location and the mechanism). The other way to select among the mechanisms is to compute forward synthetics and compare the observed and predicted waveforms.
The fits to the waveforms with the given mechanism are show below:
|
This figure shows the fit to the three components of motion (Z - vertical, R-radial and T - transverse). For each station and component, the observed traces is shown in red and the model predicted trace in blue. The traces represent filtered ground velocity in units of meters/sec (the peak value is printed adjacent to each trace; each pair of traces to plotted to the same scale to emphasize the difference in levels). Both synthetic and observed traces have been filtered using the SAC commands:
hp c 0.04 3 lp c 0.13 3
|
|
Should the national backbone of the USGS Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) be implemented with an interstation separation of 300 km, it is very likely that an earthquake such as this would have been recorded at distances on the order of 100-200 km. This means that the closest station would have information on source depth and mechanism that was lacking here.
Dr. Harley Benz, USGS, provided the USGS USNSN digital data.
The figures below show the observed spectral amplitudes (units of cm-sec) at each station and the
theoretical predictions as a function of period for the mechanism given above. The modified Utah model earth model
was used to define the Green's functions. For each station, the Love and Rayleigh wave spectrail amplitudes are plotted with the same scaling so that one can get a sense fo the effects of the effects of the focal mechanism and depth on the excitation of each.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Here we tabulate the reasons for not using certain digital data sets
The following stations did not have a valid response files:
