Location

2009/04/09 19:38:18 42.5420 13.3030 10.0 5.00 CENTRAL ITALY

Arrival Times (from USGS)

Arrival time list

Felt Map

USGS Felt map for this earthquake

USGS Felt reports page for

Focal Mechanism

 USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 ENS  2009/04/09 19:38:18:0  42.54   13.30  10.0 5.0 CENTRAL ITALY
 
 Stations used:
   CZ.DPC CZ.KHC CZ.NKC CZ.PVCC GE.MATE HU.BUD HU.PKSM HU.SOP 
   MN.AQU MN.CEL MN.CUC MN.DIVS MN.PDG MN.TRI MN.TUE MN.VLC 
   PL.KSP 
 
 Filtering commands used:
   hp c 0.0125 n 3
   lp c 0.033 n 3
 
 Best Fitting Double Couple
  Mo = 5.82e+23 dyne-cm
  Mw = 5.11 
  Z  = 8 km
  Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
   NP1      320    55   -80
   NP2      123    36   -104
  Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
    T   5.82e+23      9      43
    N   0.00e+00      8     134
    P  -5.82e+23     77     264

 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component   Value
       Mxx     3.04e+23
       Mxy     2.80e+23
       Mxz     8.16e+22
       Myy     2.35e+23
       Myz     1.87e+23
       Mzz    -5.39e+23
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     ##############                  
                 ######################              
              -----####################              
             -----------############### T #          
           -----------------###########   ###        
          --------------------################       
         #----------------------###############      
        ##------------------------##############     
        ##--------------------------############     
       ####--------------------------############    
       ####------------   ------------###########    
       #####----------- P -------------##########    
       ######----------   --------------#########    
        ######---------------------------#######     
        #######--------------------------#######     
         ########-------------------------#####      
          #########-----------------------####       
           ###########--------------------##-        
             #############---------------#-          
              ###########################-           
                 ######################              
                     ##############                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
 Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
      R          T          P
 -5.39e+23   8.16e+22  -1.87e+23 
  8.16e+22   3.04e+23  -2.80e+23 
 -1.87e+23  -2.80e+23   2.35e+23 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake_Center/MECH.NA/20090409193818/index.html
        

Preferred Solution

The preferred solution from an analysis of the surface-wave spectral amplitude radiation pattern, waveform inversion and first motion observations is

      STK = 320
      DIP = 55
     RAKE = -80
       MW = 5.11
       HS = 8.0

The waveform inversion is preferred.

Moment Tensor Comparison

The following compares this source inversion to others
SLU
 USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 ENS  2009/04/09 19:38:18:0  42.54   13.30  10.0 5.0 CENTRAL ITALY
 
 Stations used:
   CZ.DPC CZ.KHC CZ.NKC CZ.PVCC GE.MATE HU.BUD HU.PKSM HU.SOP 
   MN.AQU MN.CEL MN.CUC MN.DIVS MN.PDG MN.TRI MN.TUE MN.VLC 
   PL.KSP 
 
 Filtering commands used:
   hp c 0.0125 n 3
   lp c 0.033 n 3
 
 Best Fitting Double Couple
  Mo = 5.82e+23 dyne-cm
  Mw = 5.11 
  Z  = 8 km
  Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
   NP1      320    55   -80
   NP2      123    36   -104
  Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
    T   5.82e+23      9      43
    N   0.00e+00      8     134
    P  -5.82e+23     77     264

 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component   Value
       Mxx     3.04e+23
       Mxy     2.80e+23
       Mxz     8.16e+22
       Myy     2.35e+23
       Myz     1.87e+23
       Mzz    -5.39e+23
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     ##############                  
                 ######################              
              -----####################              
             -----------############### T #          
           -----------------###########   ###        
          --------------------################       
         #----------------------###############      
        ##------------------------##############     
        ##--------------------------############     
       ####--------------------------############    
       ####------------   ------------###########    
       #####----------- P -------------##########    
       ######----------   --------------#########    
        ######---------------------------#######     
        #######--------------------------#######     
         ########-------------------------#####      
          #########-----------------------####       
           ###########--------------------##-        
             #############---------------#-          
              ###########################-           
                 ######################              
                     ##############                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
 Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
      R          T          P
 -5.39e+23   8.16e+22  -1.87e+23 
  8.16e+22   3.04e+23  -2.80e+23 
 -1.87e+23  -2.80e+23   2.35e+23 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake_Center/MECH.NA/20090409193818/index.html
	

Waveform Inversion

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.
Location of broadband stations used for waveform inversion

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 0.0125 n 3
lp c 0.033 n 3
The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:

           DEPTH  STK   DIP  RAKE   MW    FIT
WVFGRD96    0.5   335    25   -15   4.86 0.3427
WVFGRD96    1.0   335    40   -30   4.79 0.3767
WVFGRD96    2.0   335    30   -30   4.94 0.4597
WVFGRD96    3.0   335    50   -55   4.94 0.4880
WVFGRD96    4.0   330    55   -65   4.98 0.5122
WVFGRD96    5.0   330    60   -70   5.03 0.5283
WVFGRD96    6.0   325    55   -65   5.00 0.5270
WVFGRD96    7.0   325    60   -65   5.01 0.5222
WVFGRD96    8.0   320    55   -80   5.11 0.5487
WVFGRD96    9.0   315    50   -75   5.08 0.5407
WVFGRD96   10.0   315    55   -80   5.11 0.5319
WVFGRD96   11.0   175    60    15   4.99 0.5100
WVFGRD96   12.0   170    70    15   4.98 0.5090
WVFGRD96   13.0   170    70    10   5.00 0.4993
WVFGRD96   14.0   170    75    20   5.00 0.4861
WVFGRD96   15.0   170    75    15   5.01 0.4802
WVFGRD96   16.0   170    75    10   5.02 0.4713
WVFGRD96   17.0   170    75    10   5.03 0.4626
WVFGRD96   18.0   170    75    10   5.04 0.4535
WVFGRD96   19.0   170    80    20   5.04 0.4479

The best solution is

WVFGRD96    8.0   320    55   -80   5.11 0.5487

The mechanism correspond to the best fit is
Figure 1. Waveform inversion focal mechanism

The best fit as a function of depth is given in the following figure:

Figure 2. Depth sensitivity for waveform mechanism

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 0.0125 n 3
lp c 0.033 n 3
Figure 3. Waveform comparison for selected depth
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.

Discussion

The Future

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.

Acknowledgements

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.

Velocity Model

The WUS used for the waveform synthetic seismograms and for the surface wave eigenfunctions and dispersion is as follows:

MODEL.01
Model after     8 iterations
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
     1.9000     3.4065     2.0089     2.2150  0.302E-02  0.679E-02   0.00       0.00       1.00       1.00    
     6.1000     5.5445     3.2953     2.6089  0.349E-02  0.784E-02   0.00       0.00       1.00       1.00    
    13.0000     6.2708     3.7396     2.7812  0.212E-02  0.476E-02   0.00       0.00       1.00       1.00    
    19.0000     6.4075     3.7680     2.8223  0.111E-02  0.249E-02   0.00       0.00       1.00       1.00    
     0.0000     7.9000     4.6200     3.2760  0.164E-10  0.370E-10   0.00       0.00       1.00       1.00    

Quality Control

Here we tabulate the reasons for not using certain digital data sets

The following stations did not have a valid response files:

DATE=Thu Apr 9 16:54:32 MDT 2009

Last Changed 2009/04/09