2005/01/28 22:37:07 34.71 111.00 3 4.0 ARIZONA
Arrival time list
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS Felt reports page for Intermountain Western US
The focal mechanism was determined using broadband seismic waveforms. The location of the event and the station distribution are given in Figure 1.
The preferred solution from an analysis of the surface-wave spectral amplitude radiation pattern, waveform inversion and first motion observations is
STK = 135 DIP = 75 RAKE = -15 MW = 3.76 HS = 4
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 3 lp c 0.06 3The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT WVFGRD96 0.5 140 85 10 3.61 0.7012 WVFGRD96 1.0 140 80 5 3.63 0.7269 WVFGRD96 2.0 140 85 5 3.68 0.7750 WVFGRD96 3.0 315 80 -20 3.73 0.7997 WVFGRD96 4.0 135 75 -15 3.76 0.8081 WVFGRD96 5.0 130 65 -20 3.82 0.8053 WVFGRD96 6.0 130 65 -15 3.85 0.7866 WVFGRD96 7.0 315 65 0 3.85 0.7655 WVFGRD96 8.0 315 55 0 3.88 0.7534 WVFGRD96 9.0 320 75 30 3.88 0.7463 WVFGRD96 10.0 320 70 25 3.89 0.7420 WVFGRD96 11.0 325 65 30 3.87 0.7428 WVFGRD96 12.0 325 65 30 3.88 0.7432 WVFGRD96 13.0 325 65 30 3.88 0.7419 WVFGRD96 14.0 325 60 25 3.88 0.7408 WVFGRD96 15.0 325 65 25 3.88 0.7388 WVFGRD96 16.0 325 65 25 3.88 0.7366 WVFGRD96 17.0 325 65 25 3.88 0.7327 WVFGRD96 18.0 325 65 20 3.88 0.7286 WVFGRD96 19.0 325 65 20 3.89 0.7251
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 4.0 135 75 -15 3.76 0.8081
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 0.02 3 lp c 0.06 3
NODAL PLANES STK= 79.99 DIP= 49.99 RAKE= -115.00 OR STK= 295.95 DIP= 46.03 RAKE= -63.28 DEPTH = 3.0 km Mw = 3.83 Best Fit 0.8874 - 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 TUC 176 267 eP_+ GLA 244 399 eP_X MVU 346 434 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.
The velocity model used for the search is a modified Utah model .
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. A nearly vertical strike-slip fault striking at 75 or 165 degrees is preferred. Because of the symmetry of the spectral amplitude rediation patterns, only strikes from 0-180 degrees are sampled.|
Sta Az(deg) Dist(km) TUC 176 267 PDM 262 292 GLA 244 399 DAN 270 402 MVU 346 434 SHO 287 497 SDCO 54 598 MNTX 121 621 GRA 296 628 TPH 306 671 ISCO 39 739 MNV 305 761 HWUT 356 767 BMN 321 839 AHID 360 894 BW06 8 903 LTX 129 913 CMB 296 919 HLID 344 1026 WVOR 324 1084 LKWY 2 1095 WMOK 86 1118 JCT 111 1150 WDC 306 1207 BOZ 358 1216 MSO 350 1368 KSU1 65 1370 LAO 15 1390 COR 320 1519 NEW 343 1589 OCWA 327 1816 FVM 73 1878 SLM 71 1902 BLO 70 2229 WCI 73 2242 ERPA 64 2813 SSPA 67 2976 SDMD 70 3064 HRV 64 3510
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 velocity model used for the waveform fit is a modified Utah model .
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 0.02 3 lp c 0.06 3 br c 0.1 0.2 n 8 p 2
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