2009/04/24 04:36:17 42.263 13.466 10.3 3.00 Italy
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2009/04/24 04:36:17:0 42.26 13.47 10.3 3.0 Italy Stations used: IV.ASSB IV.CERT IV.CESI IV.FDMO IV.FIAM IV.GUAR IV.GUMA IV.LPEL IV.MNS IV.MTCE IV.NRCA IV.OFFI IV.TERO MN.AQU Filtering commands used: hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 9.77e+20 dyne-cm Mw = 3.26 Z = 7 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 133 76 -104 NP2 0 20 -45 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 9.77e+20 30 235 N 0.00e+00 14 137 P -9.77e+20 57 25 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 0.00e+00 Mxy 2.36e+20 Mxz -6.49e+20 Myy 4.44e+20 Myz -5.29e+20 Mzz -4.44e+20 -----------### -------------------### ------------------------#### ---------------------------### ###---------------------------#### #####--------------- ---------#### #######-------------- P ----------#### #########------------- -----------#### ###########-------------------------#### #############-------------------------#### ###############-----------------------#### #################---------------------#### ###################-------------------#### ####################----------------#### ###### #############--------------#### ##### T ###############-----------#### #### ##################-------#### ###########################---#### ###########################--# ########################---- ###################--- ###########--- Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -4.44e+20 -6.49e+20 5.29e+20 -6.49e+20 0.00e+00 -2.36e+20 5.29e+20 -2.36e+20 4.44e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.IT/20090424043617/index.html |
STK = 0 DIP = 20 RAKE = -45 MW = 3.26 HS = 7.0
The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2009/04/24 04:36:17:0 42.26 13.47 10.3 3.0 Italy Stations used: IV.ASSB IV.CERT IV.CESI IV.FDMO IV.FIAM IV.GUAR IV.GUMA IV.LPEL IV.MNS IV.MTCE IV.NRCA IV.OFFI IV.TERO MN.AQU Filtering commands used: hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 9.77e+20 dyne-cm Mw = 3.26 Z = 7 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 133 76 -104 NP2 0 20 -45 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 9.77e+20 30 235 N 0.00e+00 14 137 P -9.77e+20 57 25 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 0.00e+00 Mxy 2.36e+20 Mxz -6.49e+20 Myy 4.44e+20 Myz -5.29e+20 Mzz -4.44e+20 -----------### -------------------### ------------------------#### ---------------------------### ###---------------------------#### #####--------------- ---------#### #######-------------- P ----------#### #########------------- -----------#### ###########-------------------------#### #############-------------------------#### ###############-----------------------#### #################---------------------#### ###################-------------------#### ####################----------------#### ###### #############--------------#### ##### T ###############-----------#### #### ##################-------#### ###########################---#### ###########################--# ########################---- ###################--- ###########--- Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -4.44e+20 -6.49e+20 5.29e+20 -6.49e+20 0.00e+00 -2.36e+20 5.29e+20 -2.36e+20 4.44e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.IT/20090424043617/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 0.10 n 3The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT WVFGRD96 0.5 310 30 80 3.01 0.3023 WVFGRD96 1.0 135 35 -80 3.02 0.2662 WVFGRD96 2.0 90 0 45 3.19 0.3068 WVFGRD96 3.0 15 10 -30 3.16 0.4098 WVFGRD96 4.0 15 15 -30 3.14 0.4603 WVFGRD96 5.0 365 15 -40 3.25 0.4951 WVFGRD96 6.0 0 15 -45 3.25 0.5165 WVFGRD96 7.0 0 20 -45 3.26 0.5244 WVFGRD96 8.0 10 25 -35 3.22 0.5139 WVFGRD96 9.0 15 25 -30 3.23 0.5017 WVFGRD96 10.0 30 30 -15 3.24 0.4879 WVFGRD96 11.0 30 30 -15 3.25 0.4705 WVFGRD96 12.0 40 35 -5 3.27 0.4550 WVFGRD96 13.0 45 35 0 3.28 0.4419 WVFGRD96 14.0 50 35 5 3.29 0.4296 WVFGRD96 15.0 50 35 5 3.34 0.4182 WVFGRD96 16.0 55 35 10 3.35 0.4073 WVFGRD96 17.0 55 35 10 3.36 0.3974 WVFGRD96 18.0 55 40 10 3.38 0.3895 WVFGRD96 19.0 60 40 15 3.39 0.3837 WVFGRD96 20.0 60 40 15 3.40 0.3772 WVFGRD96 21.0 60 40 15 3.41 0.3701 WVFGRD96 22.0 60 40 15 3.42 0.3614 WVFGRD96 23.0 60 45 15 3.44 0.3518 WVFGRD96 24.0 60 45 15 3.44 0.3412 WVFGRD96 25.0 60 45 15 3.45 0.3310 WVFGRD96 26.0 60 45 15 3.45 0.3209 WVFGRD96 27.0 60 50 15 3.47 0.3118 WVFGRD96 28.0 60 45 15 3.45 0.3064 WVFGRD96 29.0 60 50 15 3.47 0.3019
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 7.0 0 20 -45 3.26 0.5244
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. The number in black at the rightr of each predicted traces 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 bandpass filter used in the processing and for the display was
hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.10 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. |
The nnCIA used for the waveform synthetic seismograms and for the surface wave eigenfunctions and dispersion is as follows:
MODEL.01 C.It. A. Di Luzio et al Earth Plan Lettrs 280 (2009) 1-12 Fig 5. 7-8 MODEL/SURF3 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 1.5000 3.7497 2.1436 2.2753 0.500E-02 0.100E-01 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.0000 4.9399 2.8210 2.4858 0.500E-02 0.100E-01 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.0000 6.0129 3.4336 2.7058 0.500E-02 0.100E-01 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 7.0000 5.5516 3.1475 2.6093 0.167E-02 0.333E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 15.0000 5.8805 3.3583 2.6770 0.167E-02 0.333E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 6.0000 7.1059 4.0081 3.0002 0.167E-02 0.333E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 8.0000 7.1000 3.9864 3.0120 0.167E-02 0.333E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0000 7.9000 4.4036 3.2760 0.167E-02 0.333E-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:
DATE=Sat May 2 09:40:02 CDT 2009