Location

2016/09/22 07:54:20 42.7853 13.1263 10.0 3.0

SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2016/09/22 07:54:20:6 42.79 13.13 10.0 3.0 Stations used: IV.CESX IV.FAGN IV.FDMO IV.GIGS IV.GUMA IV.MGAB IV.MTCE IV.SACS IV.TERO Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -20 o DIST/3.3 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.15 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.93e+20 dyne-cm Mw = 2.79 Z = 2 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 320 75 -85 NP2 121 16 -108 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.93e+20 30 46 N 0.00e+00 5 139 P -1.93e+20 60 237 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 5.56e+19 Mxy 5.01e+19 Mxz 1.04e+20 Myy 4.04e+19 Myz 1.30e+20 Mzz -9.60e+19 ############## ###################### -########################### ------######################## ----------################ ##### -------------############## T ###### ----------------############ ####### #------------------##################### #--------------------################### ##----------------------################## ##-----------------------################# ##-------------------------############### ##----------- ------------############## ##---------- P -------------############ ###--------- --------------########### ###--------------------------######### ###--------------------------####### ####-------------------------##### ####------------------------## ######--------------------#- ########----------#### ############## Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -9.60e+19 1.04e+20 -1.30e+20 1.04e+20 5.56e+19 -5.01e+19 -1.30e+20 -5.01e+19 4.04e+19 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.IT/20160922075420/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 = 320
      DIP = 75
     RAKE = -85
       MW = 2.79
       HS = 2.0

The waveform inversion is preferred.

Moment Tensor Comparison

The following compares this source inversion to others

SLU

SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2016/09/22 07:54:20:6 42.79 13.13 10.0 3.0 Stations used: IV.CESX IV.FAGN IV.FDMO IV.GIGS IV.GUMA IV.MGAB IV.MTCE IV.SACS IV.TERO Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -20 o DIST/3.3 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.15 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.93e+20 dyne-cm Mw = 2.79 Z = 2 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 320 75 -85 NP2 121 16 -108 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.93e+20 30 46 N 0.00e+00 5 139 P -1.93e+20 60 237 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 5.56e+19 Mxy 5.01e+19 Mxz 1.04e+20 Myy 4.04e+19 Myz 1.30e+20 Mzz -9.60e+19 ############## ###################### -########################### ------######################## ----------################ ##### -------------############## T ###### ----------------############ ####### #------------------##################### #--------------------################### ##----------------------################## ##-----------------------################# ##-------------------------############### ##----------- ------------############## ##---------- P -------------############ ###--------- --------------########### ###--------------------------######### ###--------------------------####### ####-------------------------##### ####------------------------## ######--------------------#- ########----------#### ############## Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -9.60e+19 1.04e+20 -1.30e+20 1.04e+20 5.56e+19 -5.01e+19 -1.30e+20 -5.01e+19 4.04e+19 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.IT/20160922075420/index.html

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 -20 o DIST/3.3 +40
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.03 n 3 
lp c 0.15 n 3

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   195    20   -45   2.74 0.4678
WVFGRD96    2.0   320    75   -85   2.79 0.4721
WVFGRD96    3.0   320    70   -75   2.74 0.4394
WVFGRD96    4.0   320    70   -65   2.73 0.3982
WVFGRD96    5.0   320    70   -65   2.82 0.3675
WVFGRD96    6.0   350    70    60   2.82 0.3434
WVFGRD96    7.0    90    40    40   2.84 0.3217
WVFGRD96    8.0    85    45    35   2.82 0.3051
WVFGRD96    9.0    85    45    35   2.84 0.2867
WVFGRD96   10.0    85    50    35   2.86 0.2701
WVFGRD96   11.0   280    45    60   2.87 0.2617
WVFGRD96   12.0   280    45    60   2.88 0.2608
WVFGRD96   13.0   285    50    65   2.90 0.2552
WVFGRD96   14.0   285    50    65   2.92 0.2601
WVFGRD96   15.0   290    50    70   2.95 0.2588

The best solution is

WVFGRD96    2.0   320    75   -85   2.79 0.4721

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 -20 o DIST/3.3 +40
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.03 n 3 
lp c 0.15 n 3

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:

The origin time and epicentral distance are incorrect
The velocity model used for the inversion is incorrect
The velocity model used to define the P-arrival time is not the same as the velocity model used for the waveform inversion (assuming that the initial trace alignment is based on the P arrival time)

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

Velocity Model

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

Quality Control

Here we tabulate the reasons for not using certain digital data sets

The following stations did not have a valid response files:

DATE=Thu Sep 22 12:38:37 CDT 2016

Last Changed 2016/09/22