2009/04/21 10:25:44 33.011 -87.145 5.0 3.80 Alabama
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2009/04/21 10:25:44:0 33.01 -87.14 5.0 3.8 Alabama Stations used: ET.SWET IU.WCI IU.WVT NM.PLAL NM.USIN TA.KMSC US.GOGA US.LRAL US.OXF Filtering commands used: hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.33e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.35 Z = 6 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 275 85 -10 NP2 6 80 -175 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.33e+21 3 321 N 0.00e+00 79 69 P -1.33e+21 11 230 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 2.67e+20 Mxy -1.28e+21 Mxz 2.17e+20 Myy -2.27e+20 Myz 1.34e+20 Mzz -4.02e+19 #########----- ##############-------- T ##############----------- # ##############------------ ####################-------------- #####################--------------- ######################---------------- #######################----------------- #######################----------------- ########################------------------ ------------------------#----------------- -----------------------###############---- -----------------------################### ----------------------################## ----------------------################## --------------------################## -- --------------################# - P --------------################ -------------############### --------------############## ----------############ -----######### Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -4.02e+19 2.17e+20 -1.34e+20 2.17e+20 2.67e+20 1.28e+21 -1.34e+20 1.28e+21 -2.27e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20090421102544/index.html |
STK = 275 DIP = 85 RAKE = -10 MW = 3.35 HS = 6.0
The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2009/04/21 10:25:44:0 33.01 -87.14 5.0 3.8 Alabama Stations used: ET.SWET IU.WCI IU.WVT NM.PLAL NM.USIN TA.KMSC US.GOGA US.LRAL US.OXF Filtering commands used: hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.33e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.35 Z = 6 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 275 85 -10 NP2 6 80 -175 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.33e+21 3 321 N 0.00e+00 79 69 P -1.33e+21 11 230 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 2.67e+20 Mxy -1.28e+21 Mxz 2.17e+20 Myy -2.27e+20 Myz 1.34e+20 Mzz -4.02e+19 #########----- ##############-------- T ##############----------- # ##############------------ ####################-------------- #####################--------------- ######################---------------- #######################----------------- #######################----------------- ########################------------------ ------------------------#----------------- -----------------------###############---- -----------------------################### ----------------------################## ----------------------################## --------------------################## -- --------------################# - P --------------################ -------------############### --------------############## ----------############ -----######### Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -4.02e+19 2.17e+20 -1.34e+20 2.17e+20 2.67e+20 1.28e+21 -1.34e+20 1.28e+21 -2.27e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20090421102544/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 0.5 280 45 10 3.32 0.3344 WVFGRD96 1.0 280 55 15 3.30 0.3503 WVFGRD96 2.0 280 70 20 3.30 0.3629 WVFGRD96 3.0 280 80 15 3.31 0.3622 WVFGRD96 4.0 95 90 15 3.33 0.3627 WVFGRD96 5.0 95 90 15 3.35 0.3621 WVFGRD96 6.0 275 85 -10 3.35 0.3660 WVFGRD96 7.0 100 90 10 3.36 0.3599 WVFGRD96 8.0 100 90 10 3.38 0.3561 WVFGRD96 9.0 100 90 10 3.40 0.3507 WVFGRD96 10.0 275 80 -10 3.40 0.3538 WVFGRD96 11.0 275 80 -10 3.41 0.3462 WVFGRD96 12.0 275 80 -10 3.43 0.3391 WVFGRD96 13.0 275 80 -5 3.44 0.3308 WVFGRD96 14.0 275 75 -5 3.44 0.3227 WVFGRD96 15.0 270 75 -10 3.45 0.3155 WVFGRD96 16.0 270 75 -10 3.46 0.3086 WVFGRD96 17.0 270 70 -10 3.46 0.3025 WVFGRD96 18.0 270 70 -10 3.48 0.2976 WVFGRD96 19.0 270 70 -10 3.49 0.2926 WVFGRD96 20.0 270 70 -15 3.51 0.2888 WVFGRD96 21.0 270 70 -15 3.52 0.2837 WVFGRD96 22.0 270 70 -15 3.53 0.2786 WVFGRD96 23.0 270 70 -15 3.54 0.2741 WVFGRD96 24.0 270 70 -15 3.55 0.2694 WVFGRD96 25.0 270 70 -15 3.56 0.2646 WVFGRD96 26.0 270 70 -20 3.56 0.2597 WVFGRD96 27.0 270 70 -20 3.57 0.2544 WVFGRD96 28.0 270 70 -20 3.58 0.2498 WVFGRD96 29.0 270 70 -20 3.58 0.2457
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 6.0 275 85 -10 3.35 0.3660
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 componnet 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. |
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 CUS used for the waveform synthetic seismograms and for the surface wave eigenfunctions and dispersion is as follows:
MODEL.01 CUS Model with Q from simple gamma values 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 1.0000 5.0000 2.8900 2.5000 0.172E-02 0.387E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 9.0000 6.1000 3.5200 2.7300 0.160E-02 0.363E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10.0000 6.4000 3.7000 2.8200 0.149E-02 0.336E-02 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 20.0000 6.7000 3.8700 2.9020 0.000E-04 0.000E-04 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0000 8.1500 4.7000 3.3640 0.194E-02 0.431E-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=Tue Apr 21 08:09:28 CDT 2009