Location

2002/06/05 20:17:36 52.8500 -74.35 5.0 4.50 Quebec, Canada

Arrival Times (from USGS)

Arrival time list

Felt Map

USGS Felt map for this earthquake

USGS Felt reports page for Eastern Canada

Focal Mechanism

 SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 2002/06/05 20:17:36  52.8500  -74.35  5.0  4.50 Quebec, Canada
 
 Best Fitting Double Couple
    Mo = 3.63e+21 dyne-cm
    Mw = 3.64 
    Z  = 2 km
     Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
      NP1      145    55    65
      NP2        4    42   121
 Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
     T   3.63e+21     69       0
     N   0.00e+00     20     160
     P  -3.63e+21      7     253



 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component  Value
       Mxx     1.64e+20
       Mxy    -1.02e+21
       Mxz     1.37e+21
       Myy    -3.26e+21
       Myz     4.17e+20
       Mzz     3.09e+21
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     ###########---                  
                 #################-----              
              --###################-------           
             --######################------          
           ----#######################-------        
          -----#######################--------       
         ------############   #########--------      
        --------########### T #########---------     
        --------###########   ##########--------     
       ----------#######################---------    
       ----------#######################---------    
       -----------######################---------    
       ------------#####################---------    
           ---------###################---------     
         P -----------#################---------     
           ------------###############---------      
          ---------------############---------       
           ----------------##########--------        
             -----------------#####--------          
              ----------------------------           
                 ---------------#######              
                     --------######                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     

 Harvard Convention
 Moment Tensor:
      R          T          F
  3.09e+21   1.37e+21  -4.17e+20 
  1.37e+21   1.64e+20   1.02e+21 
 -4.17e+20   1.02e+21  -3.26e+21 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20020605201736/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 = 145
      DIP = 55
     RAKE = 65
       MW = 3.64
       HS = 2.0

The waveform inversion is preferred.

Moment Tensor Comparison

The following compares this source inversion to others
SLU
 SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 2002/06/05 20:17:36  52.8500  -74.35  5.0  4.50 Quebec, Canada
 
 Best Fitting Double Couple
    Mo = 3.63e+21 dyne-cm
    Mw = 3.64 
    Z  = 2 km
     Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
      NP1      145    55    65
      NP2        4    42   121
 Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
     T   3.63e+21     69       0
     N   0.00e+00     20     160
     P  -3.63e+21      7     253



 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component  Value
       Mxx     1.64e+20
       Mxy    -1.02e+21
       Mxz     1.37e+21
       Myy    -3.26e+21
       Myz     4.17e+20
       Mzz     3.09e+21
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     ###########---                  
                 #################-----              
              --###################-------           
             --######################------          
           ----#######################-------        
          -----#######################--------       
         ------############   #########--------      
        --------########### T #########---------     
        --------###########   ##########--------     
       ----------#######################---------    
       ----------#######################---------    
       -----------######################---------    
       ------------#####################---------    
           ---------###################---------     
         P -----------#################---------     
           ------------###############---------      
          ---------------############---------       
           ----------------##########--------        
             -----------------#####--------          
              ----------------------------           
                 ---------------#######              
                     --------######                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     

 Harvard Convention
 Moment Tensor:
      R          T          F
  3.09e+21   1.37e+21  -4.17e+20 
  1.37e+21   1.64e+20   1.02e+21 
 -4.17e+20   1.02e+21  -3.26e+21 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20020605201736/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 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
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   135    75    65   3.64 0.4399
WVFGRD96    1.0   135    75    65   3.66 0.4541
WVFGRD96    2.0   145    55    65   3.64 0.4800
WVFGRD96    3.0   150    50    75   3.70 0.4736
WVFGRD96    4.0   155    65    80   3.70 0.4408
WVFGRD96    5.0   160    60    85   3.72 0.4463
WVFGRD96    6.0   160    60    85   3.70 0.4393
WVFGRD96    7.0    90    55   -25   3.68 0.4247
WVFGRD96    8.0   105    55   -40   3.65 0.4261
WVFGRD96    9.0   105    55   -40   3.65 0.4275
WVFGRD96   10.0   105    55   -40   3.67 0.4231
WVFGRD96   11.0   105    55   -40   3.68 0.4235
WVFGRD96   12.0   285    60   -45   3.66 0.4224
WVFGRD96   13.0   285    60   -45   3.67 0.4233
WVFGRD96   14.0   285    60   -45   3.67 0.4232
WVFGRD96   15.0   285    60   -45   3.68 0.4222
WVFGRD96   16.0   285    60   -45   3.69 0.4203
WVFGRD96   17.0   285    60   -45   3.70 0.4175
WVFGRD96   18.0   285    60   -45   3.70 0.4143
WVFGRD96   19.0   285    60   -45   3.71 0.4109
WVFGRD96   20.0   285    60   -45   3.74 0.4048
WVFGRD96   21.0   285    65   -45   3.74 0.3997
WVFGRD96   22.0   285    65   -45   3.75 0.3941
WVFGRD96   23.0   285    65   -45   3.76 0.3880
WVFGRD96   24.0   285    65   -45   3.77 0.3816
WVFGRD96   25.0   285    65   -50   3.77 0.3744
WVFGRD96   26.0   285    65   -50   3.78 0.3672
WVFGRD96   27.0   280    60   -55   3.80 0.3597
WVFGRD96   28.0   280    60   -55   3.81 0.3519
WVFGRD96   29.0   280    60   -55   3.81 0.3436

The best solution is

WVFGRD96    2.0   145    55    65   3.64 0.4800

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 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
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 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 

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=Sun Nov 23 18:12:54 CST 2008

Last Changed 2002/06/05