2016/10/24 14:44:11 46.33 7.58 2 4.2 Switzerland
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2016/10/24 14:44:11:0 46.33 7.58 2.0 4.2 Switzerland
Stations used:
CH.ACB CH.AIGLE CH.BALST CH.BERGE CH.BOURR CH.DAGMA CH.DIX
CH.EMBD CH.FIESA CH.FUORN CH.FUSIO CH.GRIMS CH.LLS CH.MMK
CH.MUGIO CH.MUO CH.NALPS CH.PANIX CH.PLONS CH.SAIRA
CH.SENIN CH.SULZ CH.TORNY CH.VDL CH.WIMIS CH.WOLEN FR.OG02
FR.OG35 FR.OGAG FR.OGMO FR.OGMY FR.OGSI FR.OGSM FR.PLYF
GR.UBR OE.DAVA OE.FETA OE.RETA OE.SQTA OE.WTTA
Filtering commands used:
cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.06 n 3
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 3.39e+21 dyne-cm
Mw = 3.62
Z = 13 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 71 64 134
NP2 185 50 35
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 3.39e+21 50 31
N 0.00e+00 39 228
P -3.39e+21 8 131
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx -3.84e+20
Mxy 2.26e+21
Mxz 1.75e+21
Myy -1.53e+21
Myz 4.92e+20
Mzz 1.91e+21
-------#######
--------##############
----------##################
---------#####################
----------########################
----------############ ###########
-----------############ T ############
-----------############# ############-
-----------###########################--
-----------###########################----
-----------#########################------
-----------#######################--------
-----------####################-----------
----------################--------------
----------############------------------
#####-----##--------------------------
#########---------------------- --
#########--------------------- P -
########--------------------
########--------------------
######----------------
####----------
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
1.91e+21 1.75e+21 -4.92e+20
1.75e+21 -3.84e+20 -2.26e+21
-4.92e+20 -2.26e+21 -1.53e+21
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.EU/20161024144411/index.html
|
STK = 185
DIP = 50
RAKE = 35
MW = 3.62
HS = 13.0
The NDK file is 20161024144411.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2016/10/24 14:44:11:0 46.33 7.58 2.0 4.2 Switzerland
Stations used:
CH.ACB CH.AIGLE CH.BALST CH.BERGE CH.BOURR CH.DAGMA CH.DIX
CH.EMBD CH.FIESA CH.FUORN CH.FUSIO CH.GRIMS CH.LLS CH.MMK
CH.MUGIO CH.MUO CH.NALPS CH.PANIX CH.PLONS CH.SAIRA
CH.SENIN CH.SULZ CH.TORNY CH.VDL CH.WIMIS CH.WOLEN FR.OG02
FR.OG35 FR.OGAG FR.OGMO FR.OGMY FR.OGSI FR.OGSM FR.PLYF
GR.UBR OE.DAVA OE.FETA OE.RETA OE.SQTA OE.WTTA
Filtering commands used:
cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.06 n 3
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 3.39e+21 dyne-cm
Mw = 3.62
Z = 13 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 71 64 134
NP2 185 50 35
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 3.39e+21 50 31
N 0.00e+00 39 228
P -3.39e+21 8 131
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx -3.84e+20
Mxy 2.26e+21
Mxz 1.75e+21
Myy -1.53e+21
Myz 4.92e+20
Mzz 1.91e+21
-------#######
--------##############
----------##################
---------#####################
----------########################
----------############ ###########
-----------############ T ############
-----------############# ############-
-----------###########################--
-----------###########################----
-----------#########################------
-----------#######################--------
-----------####################-----------
----------################--------------
----------############------------------
#####-----##--------------------------
#########---------------------- --
#########--------------------- P -
########--------------------
########--------------------
######----------------
####----------
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
1.91e+21 1.75e+21 -4.92e+20
1.75e+21 -3.84e+20 -2.26e+21
-4.92e+20 -2.26e+21 -1.53e+21
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.EU/20161024144411/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:
cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.06 n 3The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT
WVFGRD96 1.0 350 85 -5 3.15 0.2804
WVFGRD96 2.0 355 80 10 3.27 0.3696
WVFGRD96 3.0 350 65 -10 3.33 0.3988
WVFGRD96 4.0 350 55 -10 3.38 0.4237
WVFGRD96 5.0 185 45 30 3.46 0.4512
WVFGRD96 6.0 185 45 30 3.49 0.4840
WVFGRD96 7.0 185 50 35 3.51 0.5140
WVFGRD96 8.0 185 45 30 3.55 0.5320
WVFGRD96 9.0 190 45 40 3.58 0.5565
WVFGRD96 10.0 190 45 40 3.60 0.5762
WVFGRD96 11.0 190 45 40 3.62 0.5874
WVFGRD96 12.0 185 50 35 3.61 0.5922
WVFGRD96 13.0 185 50 35 3.62 0.5935
WVFGRD96 14.0 185 55 35 3.62 0.5899
WVFGRD96 15.0 185 55 35 3.63 0.5857
WVFGRD96 16.0 185 55 35 3.64 0.5791
WVFGRD96 17.0 185 55 35 3.64 0.5701
WVFGRD96 18.0 180 60 25 3.63 0.5608
WVFGRD96 19.0 180 60 25 3.64 0.5517
WVFGRD96 20.0 180 60 25 3.65 0.5422
WVFGRD96 21.0 180 60 25 3.65 0.5328
WVFGRD96 22.0 180 60 25 3.66 0.5231
WVFGRD96 23.0 180 60 25 3.66 0.5137
WVFGRD96 24.0 180 60 20 3.67 0.5048
WVFGRD96 25.0 180 65 20 3.67 0.4963
WVFGRD96 26.0 180 65 20 3.67 0.4880
WVFGRD96 27.0 180 65 20 3.68 0.4796
WVFGRD96 28.0 180 65 20 3.68 0.4708
WVFGRD96 29.0 180 65 20 3.69 0.4625
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 13.0 185 50 35 3.62 0.5935
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
cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.06 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=Mon Oct 24 18:01:13 CDT 2016