Location

2005/09/28 05:27:32 44.60N 116.07W 5. 3.7 Idaho

Arrival Times (from USGS)

Arrival time list

Felt Map

USGS Felt map for this earthquake

USGS Felt reports page for Intermountain Western US

Focal Mechanism

 SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 2005/09/28 05:27:32 44.60N 116.07W   5. 3.7 Idaho
 
 Best Fitting Double Couple
    Mo = 6.46e+21 dyne-cm
    Mw = 3.84 
    Z  = 11 km
     Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
      NP1       71    72   154
      NP2      170    65    20
 Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
     T   6.46e+21     31      29
     N   0.00e+00     58     219
     P  -6.46e+21      5     122



 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component  Value
       Mxx     1.83e+21
       Mxy     4.88e+21
       Mxz     2.77e+21
       Myy    -3.52e+21
       Myz     9.53e+20
       Mzz     1.69e+21
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     ---###########                  
                 ------################              
              --------####################           
             ---------###########   #######          
           ----------############ T #########        
          -----------############   ##########       
         ------------##########################      
        -------------###########################     
        -------------#########################--     
       --------------#######################-----    
       --------------####################--------    
       ---------------################-----------    
       ---------------############---------------    
        ---------------######-------------------     
        --------------#-------------------------     
         ###############-------------------   -      
          ##############------------------- P        
           ##############------------------          
             #############-----------------          
              #############---------------           
                 ############----------              
                     #########-----                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     

 Harvard Convention
 Moment Tensor:
      R          T          F
  1.69e+21   2.77e+21  -9.53e+20 
  2.77e+21   1.83e+21  -4.88e+21 
 -9.53e+20  -4.88e+21  -3.52e+21 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/NEW/20050928052732/index.html
        

The focal mechanism was determined using broadband seismic waveforms. The location of the event and the station distribution are given in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Location of broadband stations used to obtain focal mechanism

Preferred Solution

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

      STK = 170
      DIP = 65
     RAKE = 20
       MW = 3.84
       HS = 11

The waveform inversion is preferred. The first-motion data are poor. The surface wave dat aseem to prefer a shallower depth, but the shallow depth does not fit the observed waveforms as well. The orientation of the P-axis is similar fir both technques.

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 3
lp c 0.16 3
br c 0.13 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   345    75   -10   3.32 0.2583
WVFGRD96    1.0   345    90     0   3.37 0.2876
WVFGRD96    2.0   165    90     0   3.50 0.3708
WVFGRD96    3.0   345    85     0   3.59 0.3901
WVFGRD96    4.0   345    80    10   3.64 0.3780
WVFGRD96    5.0   350    60    15   3.69 0.3958
WVFGRD96    6.0   185    25     5   3.65 0.4378
WVFGRD96    7.0   170    80    40   3.74 0.4686
WVFGRD96    8.0   170    80    40   3.78 0.4860
WVFGRD96    9.0   345    90   -35   3.80 0.4926
WVFGRD96   10.0   170    60    20   3.82 0.4984
WVFGRD96   11.0   170    65    20   3.84 0.4984
WVFGRD96   12.0   170    65    20   3.84 0.4926
WVFGRD96   13.0   165    75    10   3.88 0.4878
WVFGRD96   14.0   165    75    10   3.88 0.4778
WVFGRD96   15.0   165    75    10   3.88 0.4623
WVFGRD96   16.0   165    75    15   3.87 0.4430
WVFGRD96   17.0   165    70    10   3.87 0.4230
WVFGRD96   18.0   165    65    10   3.87 0.4047
WVFGRD96   19.0   165    60    10   3.86 0.3882

The best solution is

WVFGRD96   11.0   170    65    20   3.84 0.4984

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 3
lp c 0.16 3
br c 0.13 0.25 n 4 p 2
Figure 3. Waveform comparison for depth of 8 km
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.

Surface-Wave Focal Mechanism


  NODAL PLANES 

  
  STK=     274.98
  DIP=      69.99
 RAKE=    -120.00
  
             OR
  
  STK=     154.33
  DIP=      35.53
 RAKE=     -36.06
 
 
DEPTH = 5.0 km
 
Mw = 3.82
Best Fit 0.8557 - P-T axis plot gives solutions with FIT greater than FIT90

First motion data

The P-wave first motion data for focal mechanism studies are as follow:

Sta Az(deg)    Dist(km)   First motion
MSO        33  298 eP_X
WVOR      222  318 eP_X
HAWA      308  337 eP_+
REDW      106  440 eP_+
AHID      115  449 eP_X
LKWY       88  450 eP_X
HWUT      131  495 eP_X
LON       300  508 eP_X
WALA       18  523 eP_-
TTW       310  554 eP_X
PNT       334  590 -12345
HUMO      251  599 eP_X
EDM        11  980 eP_X

Surface-wave analysis

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 .

Data preparation

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.
Best mechanism fit as a function of depth. The preferred depth is given above. Lower hemisphere projection

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.

Love-wave radiation patterns

Rayleigh-wave radiation patterns

Broadband station distributiuon

Sta Az(deg)    Dist(km)   
MSO	   33	  298
WVOR	  222	  318
HAWA	  308	  337
REDW	  106	  440
LKWY	   88	  450
HWUT	  131	  495
LON	  300	  508
WALA	   18	  523
TTW	  310	  554
PNT	  334	  590
HUMO	  251	  599
WDC	  232	  694
MNV	  195	  707
SLEB	  349	  747
LLLB	  329	  799
LAO	   70	  802
EDM	   11	  980
SAO	  209	  981
ISA	  192	 1013
ISCO	  118	 1014
GSC	  184	 1034
WUAZ	  157	 1085
MWC	  189	 1164
GLA	  175	 1286
BAR	  182	 1324
TUC	  160	 1439
MNTX	  143	 1708
SLM	   98	 2242
WCI	   96	 2573

Waveform comparison for this mechanism

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 0.16 3
br c 0.13 0.25 n 4 p 2

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.

Appendix A

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.

Quality Control

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

The following stations did not have a valid response files:

Last Changed Wed Sep 28 13:13:27 CDT 2005