2015/06/30 06:44:07 32.969 -88.047 5.0 3.8 Alabama
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2015/06/30 06:44:07:0 32.97 -88.05 5.0 3.8 Alabama Stations used: AG.FCAR CO.CASEE ET.CPCT ET.SWET IM.TKL IU.WVT N4.143B N4.152A N4.154A N4.250A N4.352A N4.T47A N4.U49A N4.V48A N4.V51A N4.V52A N4.W45B N4.W52A N4.X48A N4.X51A N4.Y45B N4.Y49A N4.Y52A N4.Z47B N4.Z51A NM.CLTN NM.HALT NM.HBAR NM.HENM NM.HICK NM.LPAR NM.MPH NM.PARM NM.PBMO NM.PEBM NM.PENM NM.PLAL NM.UTMT US.BRAL US.GOGA US.OXF Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.07 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 2.85e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.57 Z = 4 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 29 85 165 NP2 120 75 5 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 2.85e+21 14 343 N 0.00e+00 74 191 P -2.85e+21 7 75 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 2.28e+21 Mxy -1.43e+21 Mxz 5.54e+20 Myy -2.41e+21 Myz -5.29e+20 Mzz 1.24e+20 ########### #### T ##############- ####### #############----- #######################------- ########################---------- #########################----------- --#######################------------- -----####################------------ -------#################------------- P ----------##############-------------- - -------------##########------------------- ---------------#######-------------------- ------------------###--------------------- -------------------#-------------------- ------------------######---------------- ----------------############---------- --------------####################-- -----------####################### --------###################### ------###################### --#################### ############## Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P 1.24e+20 5.54e+20 5.29e+20 5.54e+20 2.28e+21 1.43e+21 5.29e+20 1.43e+21 -2.41e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20150630064407/index.html |
STK = 120 DIP = 75 RAKE = 5 MW = 3.57 HS = 4.0
The NDK file is 20150630064407.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2015/06/30 06:44:07:0 32.97 -88.05 5.0 3.8 Alabama Stations used: AG.FCAR CO.CASEE ET.CPCT ET.SWET IM.TKL IU.WVT N4.143B N4.152A N4.154A N4.250A N4.352A N4.T47A N4.U49A N4.V48A N4.V51A N4.V52A N4.W45B N4.W52A N4.X48A N4.X51A N4.Y45B N4.Y49A N4.Y52A N4.Z47B N4.Z51A NM.CLTN NM.HALT NM.HBAR NM.HENM NM.HICK NM.LPAR NM.MPH NM.PARM NM.PBMO NM.PEBM NM.PENM NM.PLAL NM.UTMT US.BRAL US.GOGA US.OXF Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.07 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 2.85e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.57 Z = 4 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 29 85 165 NP2 120 75 5 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 2.85e+21 14 343 N 0.00e+00 74 191 P -2.85e+21 7 75 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 2.28e+21 Mxy -1.43e+21 Mxz 5.54e+20 Myy -2.41e+21 Myz -5.29e+20 Mzz 1.24e+20 ########### #### T ##############- ####### #############----- #######################------- ########################---------- #########################----------- --#######################------------- -----####################------------ -------#################------------- P ----------##############-------------- - -------------##########------------------- ---------------#######-------------------- ------------------###--------------------- -------------------#-------------------- ------------------######---------------- ----------------############---------- --------------####################-- -----------####################### --------###################### ------###################### --#################### ############## Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P 1.24e+20 5.54e+20 5.29e+20 5.54e+20 2.28e+21 1.43e+21 5.29e+20 1.43e+21 -2.41e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20150630064407/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 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.07 n 3The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT WVFGRD96 1.0 305 70 15 3.52 0.5995 WVFGRD96 2.0 300 90 0 3.52 0.6363 WVFGRD96 3.0 120 80 0 3.55 0.6500 WVFGRD96 4.0 120 75 5 3.57 0.6519 WVFGRD96 5.0 120 75 5 3.58 0.6503 WVFGRD96 6.0 120 75 5 3.59 0.6470 WVFGRD96 7.0 120 75 5 3.61 0.6430 WVFGRD96 8.0 120 75 5 3.62 0.6393 WVFGRD96 9.0 120 75 5 3.63 0.6353 WVFGRD96 10.0 120 75 5 3.64 0.6293 WVFGRD96 11.0 120 75 5 3.65 0.6215 WVFGRD96 12.0 125 85 15 3.66 0.6133 WVFGRD96 13.0 125 85 15 3.67 0.6037 WVFGRD96 14.0 125 85 15 3.68 0.5927 WVFGRD96 15.0 125 85 15 3.69 0.5794 WVFGRD96 16.0 300 80 -15 3.68 0.5658 WVFGRD96 17.0 300 80 -15 3.69 0.5512 WVFGRD96 18.0 300 80 -15 3.70 0.5348 WVFGRD96 19.0 300 80 -15 3.71 0.5175 WVFGRD96 20.0 300 75 -5 3.70 0.5017 WVFGRD96 21.0 300 75 0 3.70 0.4856 WVFGRD96 22.0 300 75 0 3.70 0.4700 WVFGRD96 23.0 300 75 0 3.71 0.4533 WVFGRD96 24.0 125 80 30 3.78 0.4415 WVFGRD96 25.0 125 80 30 3.78 0.4284 WVFGRD96 26.0 125 80 30 3.79 0.4152 WVFGRD96 27.0 125 85 30 3.79 0.4032 WVFGRD96 28.0 210 90 5 3.78 0.4000 WVFGRD96 29.0 30 90 -5 3.79 0.3998
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 4.0 120 75 5 3.57 0.6519
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 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.07 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 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: