2012/06/08 03:44:28 41.354 20.877 10.0 4.5 Macedonia
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2012/06/08 03:44:28:0 41.35 20.88 10.0 4.5 Macedonia Stations used: GE.PSZ GE.TIRR HL.ITM HT.AGG HT.ALN HT.FNA HT.LIT HU.SOP HU.TRPA MN.BLY MN.DIVS MN.PDG MN.TIR MN.VTS RO.BUR31 RO.BZS Filtering commands used: hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.05 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 2.79e+22 dyne-cm Mw = 4.23 Z = 9 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 222 56 -100 NP2 60 35 -75 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 2.79e+22 11 319 N 0.00e+00 9 228 P -2.79e+22 76 100 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 1.54e+22 Mxy -1.30e+22 Mxz 5.02e+21 Myy 9.90e+21 Myz -9.72e+21 Mzz -2.53e+22 ############## ###################### ######################### # T ################---------- ### ############---------------- #################------------------- ###############----------------------# ##############------------------------## #############-------------------------## ############---------------------------### ###########------------ ------------#### ##########------------- P ------------#### #########-------------- -----------##### #######----------------------------##### #######--------------------------####### #####-------------------------######## ####-----------------------######### -##--------------------########### -##--------------############# ############################ ###################### ############## Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -2.53e+22 5.02e+21 9.72e+21 5.02e+21 1.54e+22 1.30e+22 9.72e+21 1.30e+22 9.90e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake_Center/MECH.NA/20120608034428/index.html |
STK = 60 DIP = 35 RAKE = -75 MW = 4.23 HS = 9.0
The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2012/06/08 03:44:28:0 41.35 20.88 10.0 4.5 Macedonia Stations used: GE.PSZ GE.TIRR HL.ITM HT.AGG HT.ALN HT.FNA HT.LIT HU.SOP HU.TRPA MN.BLY MN.DIVS MN.PDG MN.TIR MN.VTS RO.BUR31 RO.BZS Filtering commands used: hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.05 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 2.79e+22 dyne-cm Mw = 4.23 Z = 9 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 222 56 -100 NP2 60 35 -75 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 2.79e+22 11 319 N 0.00e+00 9 228 P -2.79e+22 76 100 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 1.54e+22 Mxy -1.30e+22 Mxz 5.02e+21 Myy 9.90e+21 Myz -9.72e+21 Mzz -2.53e+22 ############## ###################### ######################### # T ################---------- ### ############---------------- #################------------------- ###############----------------------# ##############------------------------## #############-------------------------## ############---------------------------### ###########------------ ------------#### ##########------------- P ------------#### #########-------------- -----------##### #######----------------------------##### #######--------------------------####### #####-------------------------######## ####-----------------------######### -##--------------------########### -##--------------############# ############################ ###################### ############## Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -2.53e+22 5.02e+21 9.72e+21 5.02e+21 1.54e+22 1.30e+22 9.72e+21 1.30e+22 9.90e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake_Center/MECH.NA/20120608034428/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 0.05 n 3The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT WVFGRD96 0.5 75 50 -40 3.86 0.3633 WVFGRD96 1.0 285 80 -5 3.86 0.3733 WVFGRD96 2.0 95 35 -10 4.07 0.4355 WVFGRD96 3.0 95 35 -10 4.11 0.5074 WVFGRD96 4.0 90 35 -20 4.12 0.5507 WVFGRD96 5.0 90 40 -20 4.11 0.5778 WVFGRD96 6.0 90 45 -20 4.12 0.5928 WVFGRD96 7.0 90 45 -25 4.13 0.6015 WVFGRD96 8.0 75 35 -50 4.20 0.6247 WVFGRD96 9.0 60 35 -75 4.23 0.6279 WVFGRD96 10.0 65 40 -65 4.22 0.6268 WVFGRD96 11.0 55 40 -80 4.23 0.6221 WVFGRD96 12.0 55 40 -80 4.23 0.6066 WVFGRD96 13.0 240 55 -70 4.22 0.5897 WVFGRD96 14.0 100 60 10 4.18 0.5751 WVFGRD96 15.0 100 65 15 4.19 0.5699 WVFGRD96 16.0 100 65 15 4.20 0.5635 WVFGRD96 17.0 100 65 15 4.20 0.5564 WVFGRD96 18.0 100 70 20 4.21 0.5490 WVFGRD96 19.0 100 70 20 4.22 0.5422 WVFGRD96 20.0 100 70 20 4.22 0.5351 WVFGRD96 21.0 100 70 20 4.23 0.5271 WVFGRD96 22.0 100 70 20 4.23 0.5194 WVFGRD96 23.0 100 70 20 4.24 0.5116 WVFGRD96 24.0 105 70 25 4.24 0.5040 WVFGRD96 25.0 105 70 25 4.25 0.4967 WVFGRD96 26.0 105 70 25 4.25 0.4893 WVFGRD96 27.0 105 70 25 4.26 0.4815 WVFGRD96 28.0 105 70 25 4.26 0.4735 WVFGRD96 29.0 105 70 25 4.27 0.4652
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 9.0 60 35 -75 4.23 0.6279
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 0.05 n 3
![]() |
|
![]() |
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.
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=Fri Jun 8 03:42:42 MDT 2012