2011/09/13 01:37:19 36.976 -104.849 7 3.40 New Mexico
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2011/09/13 01:37:19:0 36.98 -104.85 7.0 3.4 New Mexico Stations used: GS.MHTCO IU.ANMO TA.Q24A TA.S22A TA.T25A US.ISCO US.MNTX US.SDCO Filtering commands used: hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.06 n 3 br c 0.10 0.13 n 4 p 2 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.88e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.45 Z = 4 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 10 75 -30 NP2 109 61 -163 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.88e+21 9 62 N 0.00e+00 57 166 P -1.88e+21 32 326 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx -5.25e+20 Mxy 1.40e+21 Mxz -5.57e+20 Myy 9.96e+20 Myz 7.30e+20 Mzz -4.71e+20 -----------### ---------------####### -------------------######### ------ -----------########## -------- P -----------############ --------- -----------########## ------------------------########## T # -------------------------########## ## #------------------------############### ####---------------------################# #####--------------------################# #######------------------################# ##########--------------################## ############-----------################# ################-------################# #####################-############---- ###################----------------- ##################---------------- ###############--------------- #############--------------- #########------------- ####---------- Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -4.71e+20 -5.57e+20 -7.30e+20 -5.57e+20 -5.25e+20 -1.40e+21 -7.30e+20 -1.40e+21 9.96e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20110913013719/index.html |
STK = 10 DIP = 75 RAKE = -30 MW = 3.45 HS = 4.0
The NDK file is 20110913013719.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2011/09/13 01:37:19:0 36.98 -104.85 7.0 3.4 New Mexico Stations used: GS.MHTCO IU.ANMO TA.Q24A TA.S22A TA.T25A US.ISCO US.MNTX US.SDCO Filtering commands used: hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.06 n 3 br c 0.10 0.13 n 4 p 2 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.88e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.45 Z = 4 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 10 75 -30 NP2 109 61 -163 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.88e+21 9 62 N 0.00e+00 57 166 P -1.88e+21 32 326 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx -5.25e+20 Mxy 1.40e+21 Mxz -5.57e+20 Myy 9.96e+20 Myz 7.30e+20 Mzz -4.71e+20 -----------### ---------------####### -------------------######### ------ -----------########## -------- P -----------############ --------- -----------########## ------------------------########## T # -------------------------########## ## #------------------------############### ####---------------------################# #####--------------------################# #######------------------################# ##########--------------################## ############-----------################# ################-------################# #####################-############---- ###################----------------- ##################---------------- ###############--------------- #############--------------- #########------------- ####---------- Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -4.71e+20 -5.57e+20 -7.30e+20 -5.57e+20 -5.25e+20 -1.40e+21 -7.30e+20 -1.40e+21 9.96e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20110913013719/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 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.06 n 3 br c 0.10 0.13 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 20 80 35 3.38 0.6273 WVFGRD96 1.0 20 70 20 3.38 0.6479 WVFGRD96 2.0 195 90 0 3.37 0.6862 WVFGRD96 3.0 15 85 -10 3.40 0.7006 WVFGRD96 4.0 10 75 -30 3.45 0.7013 WVFGRD96 5.0 15 90 -20 3.45 0.6897 WVFGRD96 6.0 15 90 -20 3.46 0.6827 WVFGRD96 7.0 195 90 25 3.48 0.6759 WVFGRD96 8.0 195 90 25 3.49 0.6697 WVFGRD96 9.0 195 90 25 3.50 0.6634 WVFGRD96 10.0 200 80 25 3.52 0.6580 WVFGRD96 11.0 200 80 25 3.53 0.6562 WVFGRD96 12.0 200 80 25 3.54 0.6538 WVFGRD96 13.0 205 65 5 3.51 0.6561 WVFGRD96 14.0 205 65 5 3.52 0.6568 WVFGRD96 15.0 205 65 5 3.53 0.6597 WVFGRD96 16.0 205 65 5 3.54 0.6605 WVFGRD96 17.0 205 65 5 3.55 0.6614 WVFGRD96 18.0 200 65 0 3.55 0.6621 WVFGRD96 19.0 200 65 0 3.56 0.6631 WVFGRD96 20.0 205 65 5 3.58 0.6641 WVFGRD96 21.0 195 65 5 3.61 0.6634 WVFGRD96 22.0 200 65 0 3.59 0.6633 WVFGRD96 23.0 200 65 0 3.60 0.6625 WVFGRD96 24.0 200 65 0 3.61 0.6603 WVFGRD96 25.0 200 65 0 3.62 0.6582 WVFGRD96 26.0 200 65 0 3.63 0.6548 WVFGRD96 27.0 200 65 0 3.64 0.6501 WVFGRD96 28.0 190 65 0 3.67 0.6454 WVFGRD96 29.0 190 65 0 3.68 0.6417
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 4.0 10 75 -30 3.45 0.7013
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 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.06 n 3 br c 0.10 0.13 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: