2010/08/08 01:12:38 32.991 -100.788 5.0 3.40 Texas
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2010/08/08 01:12:38:4 32.99 -100.79 5.0 3.4 Texas
Stations used:
TA.128A TA.129A TA.130A TA.131A TA.133A TA.134A TA.135A
TA.229A TA.230A TA.231A TA.232A TA.234A TA.329A TA.330A
TA.331A TA.332A TA.333A TA.334A TA.335A TA.336A TA.429A
TA.430A TA.431A TA.432A TA.434A TA.435B TA.436A TA.530A
TA.531A TA.532A TA.533A TA.534A TA.536A TA.631A TA.632A
TA.635A TA.ABTX US.JCT
Filtering commands used:
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 1.43e+21 dyne-cm
Mw = 3.37
Z = 4 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 203 61 -132
NP2 85 50 -40
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 1.43e+21 6 322
N 0.00e+00 36 228
P -1.43e+21 53 60
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx 7.52e+20
Mxy -9.04e+20
Mxz -2.20e+20
Myy 1.52e+20
Myz -6.87e+20
Mzz -9.05e+20
##############
###############------
# T ############------------
## ##########---------------
################------------------
###############---------------------
###############-----------------------
###############------------ ----------
##############------------- P ----------
##############-------------- -----------
#############----------------------------#
#############---------------------------##
-###########--------------------------####
--#########------------------------#####
----######-----------------------#######
-------##-------------------##########
--------############################
-------###########################
-----#########################
-----#######################
--####################
##############
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
-9.05e+20 -2.20e+20 6.87e+20
-2.20e+20 7.52e+20 9.04e+20
6.87e+20 9.04e+20 1.52e+20
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20100808011238/index.html
|
STK = 85
DIP = 50
RAKE = -40
MW = 3.37
HS = 4.0
The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2010/08/08 01:12:38:4 32.99 -100.79 5.0 3.4 Texas
Stations used:
TA.128A TA.129A TA.130A TA.131A TA.133A TA.134A TA.135A
TA.229A TA.230A TA.231A TA.232A TA.234A TA.329A TA.330A
TA.331A TA.332A TA.333A TA.334A TA.335A TA.336A TA.429A
TA.430A TA.431A TA.432A TA.434A TA.435B TA.436A TA.530A
TA.531A TA.532A TA.533A TA.534A TA.536A TA.631A TA.632A
TA.635A TA.ABTX US.JCT
Filtering commands used:
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 1.43e+21 dyne-cm
Mw = 3.37
Z = 4 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 203 61 -132
NP2 85 50 -40
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 1.43e+21 6 322
N 0.00e+00 36 228
P -1.43e+21 53 60
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx 7.52e+20
Mxy -9.04e+20
Mxz -2.20e+20
Myy 1.52e+20
Myz -6.87e+20
Mzz -9.05e+20
##############
###############------
# T ############------------
## ##########---------------
################------------------
###############---------------------
###############-----------------------
###############------------ ----------
##############------------- P ----------
##############-------------- -----------
#############----------------------------#
#############---------------------------##
-###########--------------------------####
--#########------------------------#####
----######-----------------------#######
-------##-------------------##########
--------############################
-------###########################
-----#########################
-----#######################
--####################
##############
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
-9.05e+20 -2.20e+20 6.87e+20
-2.20e+20 7.52e+20 9.04e+20
6.87e+20 9.04e+20 1.52e+20
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20100808011238/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 3 br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT
WVFGRD96 0.5 90 50 -20 3.06 0.2443
WVFGRD96 1.0 85 55 -30 3.08 0.2591
WVFGRD96 2.0 90 55 -25 3.24 0.3664
WVFGRD96 3.0 85 50 -35 3.32 0.4219
WVFGRD96 4.0 85 50 -40 3.37 0.4372
WVFGRD96 5.0 90 50 -30 3.37 0.4206
WVFGRD96 6.0 290 55 30 3.37 0.4103
WVFGRD96 7.0 290 60 30 3.38 0.4065
WVFGRD96 8.0 105 65 30 3.40 0.4053
WVFGRD96 9.0 105 70 30 3.41 0.4091
WVFGRD96 10.0 105 70 30 3.42 0.4098
WVFGRD96 11.0 105 70 25 3.43 0.4082
WVFGRD96 12.0 105 70 25 3.43 0.4050
WVFGRD96 13.0 105 70 25 3.44 0.4008
WVFGRD96 14.0 105 70 25 3.45 0.3954
WVFGRD96 15.0 105 70 25 3.46 0.3895
WVFGRD96 16.0 105 70 25 3.47 0.3833
WVFGRD96 17.0 105 70 25 3.47 0.3764
WVFGRD96 18.0 105 70 25 3.48 0.3698
WVFGRD96 19.0 105 70 25 3.49 0.3637
WVFGRD96 20.0 280 65 5 3.51 0.3565
WVFGRD96 21.0 280 65 5 3.52 0.3519
WVFGRD96 22.0 280 65 5 3.53 0.3482
WVFGRD96 23.0 280 65 5 3.54 0.3441
WVFGRD96 24.0 280 65 5 3.55 0.3400
WVFGRD96 25.0 280 65 5 3.56 0.3360
WVFGRD96 26.0 280 65 5 3.57 0.3312
WVFGRD96 27.0 280 65 0 3.57 0.3258
WVFGRD96 28.0 280 65 0 3.58 0.3207
WVFGRD96 29.0 280 65 0 3.59 0.3173
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 4.0 85 50 -40 3.37 0.4372
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 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
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 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
Here we tabulate the reasons for not using certain digital data sets
The following stations did not have a valid response files:
DATE=Sun Aug 8 10:53:17 CDT 2010