2011/02/28 08:46:11 35.276 -92.368 4.9 3.60 Arkansas
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2011/02/28 08:46:11:0 35.28 -92.37 4.9 3.6 Arkansas Stations used: AG.FCAR AG.WHAR NM.UALR NM.X102 NM.X201 NM.X301 TA.S40A TA.T40A TA.U40A TA.V39A TA.W40A TA.X40A TA.Y40A TA.Z40A Filtering commands used: hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.76e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.43 Z = 2 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 115 85 -15 NP2 206 75 -175 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.76e+21 7 162 N 0.00e+00 74 277 P -1.76e+21 14 70 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 1.36e+21 Mxy -1.06e+21 Mxz -3.44e+20 Myy -1.28e+21 Myz -3.23e+20 Mzz -7.90e+19 ############## ###################--- ####################-------- ###################----------- ####################-------------- ####################---------------- -##################--------------- - -----##############---------------- P -- --------##########----------------- -- ------------######------------------------ ----------------#------------------------- ----------------####---------------------- ----------------########------------------ --------------#############------------- -------------###################-------- ------------########################-- ----------########################## ---------######################### ------######################## -----####################### --############## ### ############ T Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -7.90e+19 -3.44e+20 3.23e+20 -3.44e+20 1.36e+21 1.06e+21 3.23e+20 1.06e+21 -1.28e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20110228084611/index.html |
STK = 115 DIP = 85 RAKE = -15 MW = 3.43 HS = 2.0
The NDK file is 20110228084611.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2011/02/28 08:46:11:0 35.28 -92.37 4.9 3.6 Arkansas Stations used: AG.FCAR AG.WHAR NM.UALR NM.X102 NM.X201 NM.X301 TA.S40A TA.T40A TA.U40A TA.V39A TA.W40A TA.X40A TA.Y40A TA.Z40A Filtering commands used: hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.76e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.43 Z = 2 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 115 85 -15 NP2 206 75 -175 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.76e+21 7 162 N 0.00e+00 74 277 P -1.76e+21 14 70 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 1.36e+21 Mxy -1.06e+21 Mxz -3.44e+20 Myy -1.28e+21 Myz -3.23e+20 Mzz -7.90e+19 ############## ###################--- ####################-------- ###################----------- ####################-------------- ####################---------------- -##################--------------- - -----##############---------------- P -- --------##########----------------- -- ------------######------------------------ ----------------#------------------------- ----------------####---------------------- ----------------########------------------ --------------#############------------- -------------###################-------- ------------########################-- ----------########################## ---------######################### ------######################## -----####################### --############## ### ############ T Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -7.90e+19 -3.44e+20 3.23e+20 -3.44e+20 1.36e+21 1.06e+21 3.23e+20 1.06e+21 -1.28e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20110228084611/index.html |
|
(a) mLg computed using the IASPEI formula; (b) mLg residuals ; the values used for the trimmed mean are indicated.
(a) ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Horizontal components; (b) ML residuals computed using a modified IASPEI formula that accounts for path specific attenuation; the values used for the trimmed mean are indicated. The ML relation used for each figure is given at the bottom of each plot.
(a) ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Vertical components (research); (b) ML residuals computed using a modified IASPEI formula that accounts for path specific attenuation; the values used for the trimmed mean are indicated. The ML relation used for each figure is given at the bottom of each plot.
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 0.03 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 0.5 315 50 70 3.32 0.7068 WVFGRD96 1.0 105 75 35 3.39 0.7448 WVFGRD96 2.0 115 85 -15 3.43 0.8250 WVFGRD96 3.0 115 90 -10 3.50 0.7961 WVFGRD96 4.0 295 80 10 3.53 0.7456 WVFGRD96 5.0 290 75 10 3.58 0.6812 WVFGRD96 6.0 290 70 10 3.63 0.6122 WVFGRD96 7.0 290 70 10 3.67 0.5357 WVFGRD96 8.0 290 65 10 3.68 0.4567 WVFGRD96 9.0 290 65 10 3.69 0.3902 WVFGRD96 10.0 295 35 10 3.72 0.3667 WVFGRD96 11.0 295 30 10 3.74 0.3472 WVFGRD96 12.0 295 30 10 3.76 0.3330 WVFGRD96 13.0 295 30 10 3.78 0.3211 WVFGRD96 14.0 295 25 10 3.80 0.3140 WVFGRD96 15.0 295 25 10 3.81 0.3081 WVFGRD96 16.0 295 25 10 3.82 0.3031 WVFGRD96 17.0 295 20 15 3.84 0.3008 WVFGRD96 18.0 285 20 10 3.85 0.3011 WVFGRD96 19.0 285 20 10 3.86 0.3010 WVFGRD96 20.0 290 15 15 3.91 0.2987 WVFGRD96 21.0 10 90 -80 3.95 0.3018 WVFGRD96 22.0 5 90 -80 3.96 0.3058 WVFGRD96 23.0 185 85 95 3.97 0.3124 WVFGRD96 24.0 305 5 30 3.99 0.3200 WVFGRD96 25.0 305 5 30 4.00 0.3244 WVFGRD96 26.0 320 5 45 4.00 0.3292 WVFGRD96 27.0 320 5 45 4.01 0.3337 WVFGRD96 28.0 320 5 45 4.02 0.3377 WVFGRD96 29.0 320 5 50 4.03 0.3411
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 2.0 115 85 -15 3.43 0.8250
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 component is plotted to the same scale and peak amplitudes are indicated by the numbers to the left of each trace. A pair of numbers is given in black at the right of each predicted traces. The upper number 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 lower number gives the percentage of variance reduction to characterize the individual goodness of fit (100% indicates a perfect fit).
The bandpass filter used in the processing and for the display was
hp c 0.03 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. |
A check on the assumed source location is possible by looking at the time shifts between the observed and predicted traces. The time shifts for waveform matching arise for several reasons:
Time_shift = A + B cos Azimuth + C Sin Azimuth
The time shifts for this inversion lead to the next figure:
The derived shift in origin time and epicentral coordinates are given at the bottom of the figure.
Thanks also to the many seismic network operators whose dedication make this effort possible: University of Nevada Reno, University of Alaska, University of Washington, Oregon State University, University of Utah, Montana Bureas of Mines, UC Berkely, Caltech, UC San Diego, Saint Louis University, University of Memphis, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, the Iris stations and the Transportable Array of EarthScope.
The CUS model 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
Here we tabulate the reasons for not using certain digital data sets
The following stations did not have a valid response files: