2014/07/23 14:03:47 35.879 -97.305 5.1 3.2 Oklahoma
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2014/07/23 14:03:47:0 35.88 -97.31 5.1 3.2 Oklahoma Stations used: GS.OK025 GS.OK026 GS.OK027 GS.OK028 GS.OK029 OK.BCOK TA.TUL1 Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -40 o DIST/3.3 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.05 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 3.02e+20 dyne-cm Mw = 2.92 Z = 5 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 285 90 20 NP2 195 70 180 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 3.02e+20 14 152 N 0.00e+00 70 285 P -3.02e+20 14 58 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 1.42e+20 Mxy -2.46e+20 Mxz -9.98e+19 Myy -1.42e+20 Myz -2.67e+19 Mzz -9.03e+12 ############-- ##############-------- ###############------------- ###############--------------- ################--------------- ################---------------- P - ################----------------- -- #################----------------------- ---#############------------------------ -----------#####-------------------------- ----------------##------------------------ ----------------########------------------ ---------------################----------- --------------#######################--- --------------########################## ------------########################## -----------######################### ----------######################## --------############## ##### --------############# T #### -----############# # -############# Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -9.03e+12 -9.98e+19 2.67e+19 -9.98e+19 1.42e+20 2.46e+20 2.67e+19 2.46e+20 -1.42e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20140723140347/index.html |
STK = 285 DIP = 90 RAKE = 20 MW = 2.92 HS = 5.0
The NDK file is 20140723140347.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2014/07/23 14:03:47:0 35.88 -97.31 5.1 3.2 Oklahoma Stations used: GS.OK025 GS.OK026 GS.OK027 GS.OK028 GS.OK029 OK.BCOK TA.TUL1 Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -40 o DIST/3.3 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.05 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 3.02e+20 dyne-cm Mw = 2.92 Z = 5 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 285 90 20 NP2 195 70 180 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 3.02e+20 14 152 N 0.00e+00 70 285 P -3.02e+20 14 58 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 1.42e+20 Mxy -2.46e+20 Mxz -9.98e+19 Myy -1.42e+20 Myz -2.67e+19 Mzz -9.03e+12 ############-- ##############-------- ###############------------- ###############--------------- ################--------------- ################---------------- P - ################----------------- -- #################----------------------- ---#############------------------------ -----------#####-------------------------- ----------------##------------------------ ----------------########------------------ ---------------################----------- --------------#######################--- --------------########################## ------------########################## -----------######################### ----------######################## --------############## ##### --------############# T #### -----############# # -############# Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -9.03e+12 -9.98e+19 2.67e+19 -9.98e+19 1.42e+20 2.46e+20 2.67e+19 2.46e+20 -1.42e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20140723140347/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:
cut o DIST/3.3 -40 o DIST/3.3 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.05 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 1.0 105 85 -35 2.67 0.2722 WVFGRD96 2.0 105 85 -45 2.86 0.3603 WVFGRD96 3.0 105 85 -35 2.88 0.4182 WVFGRD96 4.0 105 85 -25 2.90 0.4392 WVFGRD96 5.0 285 90 20 2.92 0.4395 WVFGRD96 6.0 285 90 15 2.94 0.4324 WVFGRD96 7.0 285 90 15 2.97 0.4216 WVFGRD96 8.0 290 85 20 3.01 0.4063 WVFGRD96 9.0 290 85 20 3.03 0.3876 WVFGRD96 10.0 285 90 15 3.04 0.3699 WVFGRD96 11.0 110 90 -20 3.05 0.3533 WVFGRD96 12.0 110 90 -20 3.06 0.3377 WVFGRD96 13.0 110 90 -20 3.07 0.3243 WVFGRD96 14.0 110 90 -20 3.09 0.3139 WVFGRD96 15.0 290 85 25 3.10 0.3053 WVFGRD96 16.0 110 90 -25 3.10 0.2970 WVFGRD96 17.0 290 90 25 3.11 0.2903 WVFGRD96 18.0 110 90 -25 3.13 0.2847 WVFGRD96 19.0 290 90 25 3.14 0.2788 WVFGRD96 20.0 110 90 -25 3.15 0.2734 WVFGRD96 21.0 110 90 -30 3.15 0.2682 WVFGRD96 22.0 110 90 -30 3.16 0.2635 WVFGRD96 23.0 145 25 75 3.21 0.2637 WVFGRD96 24.0 155 25 90 3.22 0.2672 WVFGRD96 25.0 160 25 95 3.24 0.2718 WVFGRD96 26.0 335 65 85 3.25 0.2747 WVFGRD96 27.0 170 25 105 3.27 0.2781 WVFGRD96 28.0 330 65 80 3.28 0.2787 WVFGRD96 29.0 330 65 75 3.30 0.2778
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 5.0 285 90 20 2.92 0.4395
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 -40 o DIST/3.3 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.05 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.
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 WUS model 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: