Location

2015/01/19 09:54:31 37.188 -97.885 5.0 3.9 Kansas

Arrival Times (from USGS)

Arrival time list

Felt Map

USGS Felt map for this earthquake

USGS Felt reports main page

Focal Mechanism

 USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 ENS  2015/01/19 09:54:31:0  37.19  -97.89   5.0 3.9 Kansas
 
 Stations used:
   GS.KAN10 GS.KAN12 GS.OK025 GS.OK026 GS.OK029 GS.OK030 
   US.CBKS US.KSU1 US.WMOK 
 
 Filtering commands used:
   cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +50
   rtr
   taper w 0.1
   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 = 2.85e+21 dyne-cm
  Mw = 3.57 
  Z  = 10 km
  Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
   NP1      300    80    25
   NP2      205    65   169
  Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
    T   2.85e+21     25     165
    N   0.00e+00     63     320
    P  -2.85e+21     10      71

 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component   Value
       Mxx     1.89e+21
       Mxy    -1.45e+21
       Mxz    -1.20e+21
       Myy    -2.31e+21
       Myz    -1.78e+20
       Mzz     4.12e+20
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     ##############                  
                 ##################----              
              ##################----------           
             #################-------------          
           #################-----------------        
          -################-------------------       
         --------#########------------------         
        -------------###-------------------- P -     
        ---------------##-------------------   -     
       ---------------######---------------------    
       ---------------#########------------------    
       --------------#############---------------    
       -------------#################------------    
        ------------####################--------     
        -----------#######################------     
         ----------#########################---      
          ---------###########################       
           -------###########################        
             -----#############   #########          
              ----############# T ########           
                 --############   #####              
                     ##############                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
 Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
      R          T          P
  4.12e+20  -1.20e+21   1.78e+20 
 -1.20e+21   1.89e+21   1.45e+21 
  1.78e+20   1.45e+21  -2.31e+21 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20150119095431/index.html
        

Preferred Solution

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

      STK = 300
      DIP = 80
     RAKE = 25
       MW = 3.57
       HS = 10.0

The NDK file is 20150119095431.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.

Moment Tensor Comparison

The following compares this source inversion to others
SLU
 USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 ENS  2015/01/19 09:54:31:0  37.19  -97.89   5.0 3.9 Kansas
 
 Stations used:
   GS.KAN10 GS.KAN12 GS.OK025 GS.OK026 GS.OK029 GS.OK030 
   US.CBKS US.KSU1 US.WMOK 
 
 Filtering commands used:
   cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +50
   rtr
   taper w 0.1
   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 = 2.85e+21 dyne-cm
  Mw = 3.57 
  Z  = 10 km
  Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
   NP1      300    80    25
   NP2      205    65   169
  Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
    T   2.85e+21     25     165
    N   0.00e+00     63     320
    P  -2.85e+21     10      71

 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component   Value
       Mxx     1.89e+21
       Mxy    -1.45e+21
       Mxz    -1.20e+21
       Myy    -2.31e+21
       Myz    -1.78e+20
       Mzz     4.12e+20
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     ##############                  
                 ##################----              
              ##################----------           
             #################-------------          
           #################-----------------        
          -################-------------------       
         --------#########------------------         
        -------------###-------------------- P -     
        ---------------##-------------------   -     
       ---------------######---------------------    
       ---------------#########------------------    
       --------------#############---------------    
       -------------#################------------    
        ------------####################--------     
        -----------#######################------     
         ----------#########################---      
          ---------###########################       
           -------###########################        
             -----#############   #########          
              ----############# T ########           
                 --############   #####              
                     ##############                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
 Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
      R          T          P
  4.12e+20  -1.20e+21   1.78e+20 
 -1.20e+21   1.89e+21   1.45e+21 
  1.78e+20   1.45e+21  -2.31e+21 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20150119095431/index.html
	

Magnitudes

mLg Magnitude


(a) mLg computed using the IASPEI formula; (b) mLg residuals ; the values used for the trimmed mean are indicated.

ML Magnitude


(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.

Context

The next figure presents the focal mechanism for this earthquake (red) in the context of other events (blue) in the SLU Moment Tensor Catalog which are within ± 0.5 degrees of the new event. This comparison is shown in the left panel of the figure. The right panel shows the inferred direction of maximum compressive stress and the type of faulting (green is strike-slip, red is normal, blue is thrust; oblique is shown by a combination of colors).

Waveform Inversion

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.
Location of broadband stations used for 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:

cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +50
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.03 n 3 
lp c 0.10 n 3 
br c 0.12 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    1.0   110    90    -5   3.33 0.5394
WVFGRD96    2.0   115    90   -10   3.42 0.6502
WVFGRD96    3.0   115    90    -5   3.45 0.6998
WVFGRD96    4.0   115    85     0   3.48 0.7144
WVFGRD96    5.0   115    85     0   3.50 0.7155
WVFGRD96    6.0   305    70    35   3.50 0.7269
WVFGRD96    7.0   305    75    30   3.51 0.7430
WVFGRD96    8.0   305    70    35   3.55 0.7582
WVFGRD96    9.0   305    75    30   3.56 0.7625
WVFGRD96   10.0   300    80    25   3.57 0.7653
WVFGRD96   11.0   300    80    25   3.59 0.7634
WVFGRD96   12.0   300    80    25   3.60 0.7615
WVFGRD96   13.0   300    80    25   3.62 0.7540
WVFGRD96   14.0   300    80    25   3.63 0.7452
WVFGRD96   15.0   300    80    30   3.64 0.7333
WVFGRD96   16.0   300    80    30   3.65 0.7204
WVFGRD96   17.0   300    80    35   3.66 0.7046
WVFGRD96   18.0   300    80    35   3.68 0.6903
WVFGRD96   19.0   300    80    35   3.69 0.6729
WVFGRD96   20.0   300    80    40   3.70 0.6554
WVFGRD96   21.0   300    80    40   3.72 0.6383
WVFGRD96   22.0   290    85    35   3.73 0.6200
WVFGRD96   23.0   290    85    35   3.75 0.6010
WVFGRD96   24.0   290    85    35   3.76 0.5825
WVFGRD96   25.0   290    85    35   3.77 0.5641
WVFGRD96   26.0   310    30    35   3.71 0.5521
WVFGRD96   27.0   320    30    45   3.71 0.5438
WVFGRD96   28.0   315    35    45   3.72 0.5365
WVFGRD96   29.0   325    35    55   3.73 0.5298

The best solution is

WVFGRD96   10.0   300    80    25   3.57 0.7653

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 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

cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +50
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.03 n 3 
lp c 0.10 n 3 
br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
Figure 3. Waveform comparison for selected depth. Red: observed; Blue - predicted. The time shift with respect to the model prediction is indicated. The percent of fit is also indicated.
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:

Assuming only a mislocation, the time shifts are fit to a functional form:

 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.

Discussion

Acknowledgements

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.

Velocity Model

The WUS model 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    

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 Mon Dec 7 00:00:05 CST 2015