(a) mLg computed using the IASPEI formula; (b) mLg residuals ; the values used for the trimmed mean are indicated.
2012/10/16 23:12:22 43.611 -70.661 5.0 4.60 Maine
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2012/10/16 23:12:22:0 43.61 -70.66 5.0 4.6 Maine
Stations used:
CN.A16 CN.A21 CN.A54 CN.A61 CN.A64 CN.ALFO CN.ALGO CN.BANO
CN.DELO CN.DMCQ CN.DRCO CN.GAC CN.GGN CN.HAL CN.KGNO CN.LMQ
CN.MEDO CN.MNTQ CN.ORHO CN.ORIO CN.OTT CN.PEMO CN.PKRO
CN.PLVO CN.SADO CN.STCO IU.HRV LD.ACCN LD.BRNJ LD.FRNY
LD.KSCT LD.KSPA LD.MMNY LD.NCB LD.ODNJ LD.PAL NE.BCX
NE.BRYW NE.EMMW NE.PQI NE.QUA2 NE.TRY NE.VT1 NE.WES NE.WSPT
NE.WVL NE.YLE PE.PSUB TA.M65A TA.N59A US.BINY US.LBNH
US.LONY US.PKME
Filtering commands used:
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 1.40e+22 dyne-cm
Mw = 4.03
Z = 7 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 348 61 84
NP2 180 30 100
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 1.40e+22 74 244
N 0.00e+00 5 351
P -1.40e+22 15 83
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx 2.12e+14
Mxy -1.21e+21
Mxz -2.10e+21
Myy -1.19e+22
Myz -6.88e+21
Mzz 1.19e+22
--------------
-----#####------------
------#########-------------
-----############-------------
------###############-------------
------################--------------
------##################--------------
------####################--------------
------#####################--------- -
------######################--------- P --
------######################--------- --
------######## ############-------------
------######## T ############-------------
------####### ############------------
------######################------------
------#####################-----------
------####################----------
------###################---------
-----#################--------
------###############-------
-----############-----
----########--
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
1.19e+22 -2.10e+21 6.88e+21
-2.10e+21 2.12e+14 1.21e+21
6.88e+21 1.21e+21 -1.19e+22
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20121016231222/index.html
|
STK = 180
DIP = 30
RAKE = 100
MW = 4.03
HS = 7.0
The NDK file is 20121016231222.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2012/10/16 23:12:22:0 43.61 -70.66 5.0 4.6 Maine
Stations used:
CN.A16 CN.A21 CN.A54 CN.A61 CN.A64 CN.ALFO CN.ALGO CN.BANO
CN.DELO CN.DMCQ CN.DRCO CN.GAC CN.GGN CN.HAL CN.KGNO CN.LMQ
CN.MEDO CN.MNTQ CN.ORHO CN.ORIO CN.OTT CN.PEMO CN.PKRO
CN.PLVO CN.SADO CN.STCO IU.HRV LD.ACCN LD.BRNJ LD.FRNY
LD.KSCT LD.KSPA LD.MMNY LD.NCB LD.ODNJ LD.PAL NE.BCX
NE.BRYW NE.EMMW NE.PQI NE.QUA2 NE.TRY NE.VT1 NE.WES NE.WSPT
NE.WVL NE.YLE PE.PSUB TA.M65A TA.N59A US.BINY US.LBNH
US.LONY US.PKME
Filtering commands used:
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 1.40e+22 dyne-cm
Mw = 4.03
Z = 7 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 348 61 84
NP2 180 30 100
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 1.40e+22 74 244
N 0.00e+00 5 351
P -1.40e+22 15 83
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx 2.12e+14
Mxy -1.21e+21
Mxz -2.10e+21
Myy -1.19e+22
Myz -6.88e+21
Mzz 1.19e+22
--------------
-----#####------------
------#########-------------
-----############-------------
------###############-------------
------################--------------
------##################--------------
------####################--------------
------#####################--------- -
------######################--------- P --
------######################--------- --
------######## ############-------------
------######## T ############-------------
------####### ############------------
------######################------------
------#####################-----------
------####################----------
------###################---------
-----#################--------
------###############-------
-----############-----
----########--
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
1.19e+22 -2.10e+21 6.88e+21
-2.10e+21 2.12e+14 1.21e+21
6.88e+21 1.21e+21 -1.19e+22
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20121016231222/index.html
|
(a) mLg computed using the IASPEI formula; (b) mLg residuals ; the values used for the trimmed mean are indicated.
(a) ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Horizontal components; (b) ML residuals computed using a modified IASPEI formula that accounts for path specific attenuation; the values used for the trimmed mean are indicated. The ML relation used for each figure is given at the bottom of each plot.
(a) ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Vertical components (research); (b) ML residuals computed using a modified IASPEI formula that accounts for path specific attenuation; the values used for the trimmed mean are indicated. The ML relation used for each figure is given at the bottom of each plot.
 |
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 0.5 145 90 -75 4.17 0.5055
WVFGRD96 1.0 145 90 -75 4.17 0.5138
WVFGRD96 2.0 330 85 65 4.03 0.5640
WVFGRD96 3.0 340 75 75 4.01 0.5985
WVFGRD96 4.0 190 25 110 4.03 0.6465
WVFGRD96 5.0 350 65 85 4.03 0.6857
WVFGRD96 6.0 350 60 85 4.04 0.7048
WVFGRD96 7.0 180 30 100 4.03 0.7093
WVFGRD96 8.0 175 30 95 4.02 0.7008
WVFGRD96 9.0 165 30 90 4.02 0.6847
WVFGRD96 10.0 345 60 85 4.04 0.6711
WVFGRD96 11.0 345 60 85 4.04 0.6482
WVFGRD96 12.0 340 60 75 4.03 0.6239
WVFGRD96 13.0 335 60 70 4.03 0.5992
WVFGRD96 14.0 335 60 65 4.03 0.5757
WVFGRD96 15.0 335 60 65 4.04 0.5514
WVFGRD96 16.0 330 60 60 4.04 0.5279
WVFGRD96 17.0 330 60 60 4.04 0.5045
WVFGRD96 18.0 330 60 60 4.04 0.4814
WVFGRD96 19.0 325 65 55 4.04 0.4587
WVFGRD96 20.0 325 65 55 4.07 0.4400
WVFGRD96 21.0 325 65 55 4.07 0.4197
WVFGRD96 22.0 325 65 55 4.08 0.3993
WVFGRD96 23.0 325 65 50 4.08 0.3801
WVFGRD96 24.0 325 65 50 4.08 0.3617
WVFGRD96 25.0 320 65 50 4.08 0.3446
WVFGRD96 26.0 320 65 50 4.09 0.3302
WVFGRD96 27.0 320 65 50 4.09 0.3160
WVFGRD96 28.0 320 65 50 4.09 0.3028
WVFGRD96 29.0 100 70 -45 4.11 0.2906
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 7.0 180 30 100 4.03 0.7093
The mechanism corresponding 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 0.10 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. |
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.
The following figure shows the stations used in the grid search for the best focal mechanism to fit the surface-wave spectral amplitudes of the Love and Rayleigh waves.
|
|
|
The surface-wave determined focal mechanism is shown here.
NODAL PLANES
STK= 350.00
DIP= 60.00
RAKE= 90.00
OR
STK= 170.00
DIP= 30.00
RAKE= 90.00
DEPTH = 6.0 km
Mw = 4.16
Best Fit 0.8591 - P-T axis plot gives solutions with FIT greater than FIT90
 |
The P-wave first motion data for focal mechanism studies are as follow:
Sta Az Dist First motion
Surface wave analysis was performed using codes from Computer Programs in Seismology, specifically the multiple filter analysis program do_mft and the surface-wave radiation pattern search program srfgrd96.
Digital data were collected, instrument response removed and traces converted
to Z, R an T components. Multiple filter analysis was applied to the Z and T traces to obtain the Rayleigh- and Love-wave spectral amplitudes, respectively.
These were input to the search program which examined all depths between 1 and 25 km
and all possible mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
| Pressure-tension axis trends. Since the surface-wave spectra search does not distinguish between P and T axes and since there is a 180 ambiguity in strike, all possible P and T axes are plotted. First motion data and waveforms will be used to select the preferred mechanism. The purpose of this plot is to provide an idea of the possible range of solutions. The P and T-axes for all mechanisms with goodness of fit greater than 0.9 FITMAX (above) are plotted here. |
|
| Focal mechanism sensitivity at the preferred depth. The red color indicates a very good fit to the Love and Rayleigh wave radiation patterns. 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. Because of the symmetry of the spectral amplitude rediation patterns, only strikes from 0-180 degrees are sampled. |
The distribution of broadband stations with azimuth and distance is
Listing of broadband stations used
Since the analysis of the surface-wave radiation patterns uses only spectral amplitudes and because the surfave-wave radiation patterns have a 180 degree symmetry, each surface-wave solution consists of four possible focal mechanisms corresponding to the interchange of the P- and T-axes and a roation of the mechanism by 180 degrees. To select one mechanism, P-wave first motion can be used. This was not possible in this case because all the P-wave first motions were emergent ( a feature of the P-wave wave takeoff angle, the station location and the mechanism). The other way to select among the mechanisms is to compute forward synthetics and compare the observed and predicted waveforms.
The fits to the waveforms with the given mechanism are show below:
|
This figure shows the fit to the three components of motion (Z - vertical, R-radial and T - transverse). For each station and component, the observed traces is shown in red and the model predicted trace in blue. The traces represent filtered ground velocity in units of meters/sec (the peak value is printed adjacent to each trace; each pair of traces to plotted to the same scale to emphasize the difference in levels). Both synthetic and observed traces have been filtered using the SAC commands:
hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3
|
|
Thanks also to the many seismic network operators whose dedication make this effort possible: University of Nevada Reno, University of Alaska, University of Washington, Oregon State University, University of Utah, Montana Bureas of Mines, UC Berkely, Caltech, UC San Diego, Saint Louis University, University of Memphis, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, the Iris stations and the Transportable Array of EarthScope.
The CUS model 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:
