2011/03/18 09:36:27 43.046 74.902 10.0 4.50 Kazakhstan
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2011/03/18 09:36:27:0 43.05 74.90 10.0 4.5 Kazakhstan
Stations used:
II.AAK II.KURK IU.MAKZ KN.TKM2 KZ.KKAR KZ.MKAR
Filtering commands used:
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 1.72e+22 dyne-cm
Mw = 4.09
Z = 21 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 35 70 30
NP2 294 62 157
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 1.72e+22 35 257
N 0.00e+00 54 66
P -1.72e+22 5 163
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx -1.50e+22
Mxy 7.38e+21
Mxz -3.94e+20
Myy 9.43e+21
Myz -8.31e+21
Mzz 5.52e+21
--------------
----------------------
--------------------------##
---------------------------###
----------------------------######
-----------------------------#######
#################------------#########
#######################------###########
###########################--###########
#############################--###########
############################-----#########
###### ##################--------#######
###### T ################------------#####
##### ###############--------------###
#####################-----------------##
###################-------------------
################--------------------
#############---------------------
#########---------------------
#####-----------------------
--------------- ----
----------- P
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
5.52e+21 -3.94e+20 8.31e+21
-3.94e+20 -1.50e+22 -7.38e+21
8.31e+21 -7.38e+21 9.43e+21
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake_Center/MECH.NA/20110318093627/index.html
|
STK = 35
DIP = 70
RAKE = 30
MW = 4.09
HS = 21.0
The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2011/03/18 09:36:27:0 43.05 74.90 10.0 4.5 Kazakhstan
Stations used:
II.AAK II.KURK IU.MAKZ KN.TKM2 KZ.KKAR KZ.MKAR
Filtering commands used:
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 1.72e+22 dyne-cm
Mw = 4.09
Z = 21 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 35 70 30
NP2 294 62 157
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 1.72e+22 35 257
N 0.00e+00 54 66
P -1.72e+22 5 163
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx -1.50e+22
Mxy 7.38e+21
Mxz -3.94e+20
Myy 9.43e+21
Myz -8.31e+21
Mzz 5.52e+21
--------------
----------------------
--------------------------##
---------------------------###
----------------------------######
-----------------------------#######
#################------------#########
#######################------###########
###########################--###########
#############################--###########
############################-----#########
###### ##################--------#######
###### T ################------------#####
##### ###############--------------###
#####################-----------------##
###################-------------------
################--------------------
#############---------------------
#########---------------------
#####-----------------------
--------------- ----
----------- P
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
5.52e+21 -3.94e+20 8.31e+21
-3.94e+20 -1.50e+22 -7.38e+21
8.31e+21 -7.38e+21 9.43e+21
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake_Center/MECH.NA/20110318093627/index.html
|
The focal mechanism was determined using broadband seismic waveforms. The location of the event and the and stations used for the waveform inversion are shown in the next figure.
|
|
|
|
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 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT
WVFGRD96 0.5 220 55 50 3.92 0.5199
WVFGRD96 1.0 225 55 55 3.95 0.5342
WVFGRD96 2.0 25 70 -30 3.88 0.5319
WVFGRD96 3.0 35 75 35 3.91 0.5464
WVFGRD96 4.0 35 70 30 3.91 0.5743
WVFGRD96 5.0 35 70 30 3.92 0.5994
WVFGRD96 6.0 35 70 30 3.93 0.6201
WVFGRD96 7.0 35 70 30 3.94 0.6380
WVFGRD96 8.0 35 70 30 3.95 0.6548
WVFGRD96 9.0 35 70 25 3.96 0.6695
WVFGRD96 10.0 35 70 30 3.99 0.6827
WVFGRD96 11.0 35 70 30 4.00 0.6936
WVFGRD96 12.0 35 70 30 4.01 0.7028
WVFGRD96 13.0 35 70 30 4.02 0.7109
WVFGRD96 14.0 35 70 30 4.03 0.7181
WVFGRD96 15.0 35 70 30 4.04 0.7231
WVFGRD96 16.0 35 70 30 4.04 0.7260
WVFGRD96 17.0 35 70 30 4.05 0.7271
WVFGRD96 18.0 35 70 30 4.06 0.7294
WVFGRD96 19.0 35 70 30 4.07 0.7331
WVFGRD96 20.0 35 70 30 4.08 0.7330
WVFGRD96 21.0 35 70 30 4.09 0.7337
WVFGRD96 22.0 35 70 30 4.10 0.7322
WVFGRD96 23.0 35 70 30 4.10 0.7326
WVFGRD96 24.0 35 70 30 4.11 0.7327
WVFGRD96 25.0 35 70 30 4.12 0.7303
WVFGRD96 26.0 35 70 30 4.12 0.7252
WVFGRD96 27.0 35 70 30 4.13 0.7212
WVFGRD96 28.0 35 70 35 4.14 0.7182
WVFGRD96 29.0 35 70 35 4.15 0.7125
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 21.0 35 70 30 4.09 0.7337
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 component is plotted to the same scale and peak amplitudes are indicated by the numbers to the left of each trace. A pair of numbers is given in black at the right of each predicted traces. The upper number 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 lower number gives the percentage of variance reduction to characterize the individual goodness of fit (100% indicates a perfect fit).
The bandpass filter used in the processing and for the display was
hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 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. |
A check on the assumed source location is possible by looking at the time shifts between the observed and predicted traces. The time shifts for waveform matching arise for several reasons:
Time_shift = A + B cos Azimuth + C Sin Azimuth
The time shifts for this inversion lead to the next figure:
The derived shift in origin time and epicentral coordinates are given at the bottom of the figure.
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 digital data used in this study were provided by Natural Resources Canada through their AUTODRM site http://www.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/nwfa/autodrm/autodrm_req_e.php, and IRIS using their BUD interface.
Thanks also to the many seismic network operators whose dedication make this effort possible: University of Alaska, University of Washington, Oregon State University, University of Utah, Montana Bureas of Mines, UC Berkely, Caltech, UC San Diego, Saint L ouis University, Universityof Memphis, Lamont Doehrty Earth Observatory, Boston College, the Iris stations and the Transportable Array of EarthScope.
The CUS used for the waveform synthetic seismograms and for the surface wave eigenfunctions and dispersion is as follows:
MODEL.01 CUS Model with Q from simple gamma values ISOTROPIC KGS FLAT EARTH 1-D CONSTANT VELOCITY LINE08 LINE09 LINE10 LINE11 H(KM) VP(KM/S) VS(KM/S) RHO(GM/CC) QP QS ETAP ETAS FREFP FREFS 1.0000 5.0000 2.8900 2.5000 0.172E-02 0.387E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 9.0000 6.1000 3.5200 2.7300 0.160E-02 0.363E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10.0000 6.4000 3.7000 2.8200 0.149E-02 0.336E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 20.0000 6.7000 3.8700 2.9020 0.000E-04 0.000E-04 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0000 8.1500 4.7000 3.3640 0.194E-02 0.431E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Here we tabulate the reasons for not using certain digital data sets
The following stations did not have a valid response files:
DATE=Fri Mar 18 11:46:06 CDT 2011