USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2020/01/15 08:14:48:0 18.00 -66.74 6.0 3.6 Puerto Rico Stations used: GS.PR03 GS.PR05 IU.SJG PR.AGPR PR.CELP PR.CRPR PR.ECPR PR.EMPR PR.GCPR PR.MLPR PR.OBIP PR.PRSN PR.UUPR Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.64e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.41 Z = 5 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 105 65 -40 NP2 215 54 -149 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.64e+21 6 162 N 0.00e+00 44 258 P -1.64e+21 45 65 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 1.32e+21 Mxy -7.84e+20 Mxz -5.17e+20 Myy -5.15e+20 Myz -6.88e+20 Mzz -8.08e+20 ############## ###################### ###################--------- #################------------- ################------------------ ###############--------------------- ##############------------------------ ##############--------------- -------- ############----------------- P -------- ---#########------------------ --------- -----######------------------------------- -------###-------------------------------- ----------#------------------------------- --------######-------------------------- --------############-----------------### ------################################ -----############################### ----############################## --############################ --########################## ################ ### ############ T Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -8.08e+20 -5.17e+20 6.88e+20 -5.17e+20 1.32e+21 7.84e+20 6.88e+20 7.84e+20 -5.15e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20200115081448/index.html |
STK = 105 DIP = 65 RAKE = -40 MW = 3.41 HS = 5.0
The NDK file is 20200115081448.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to others
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2020/01/15 08:14:48:0 18.00 -66.74 6.0 3.6 Puerto Rico Stations used: GS.PR03 GS.PR05 IU.SJG PR.AGPR PR.CELP PR.CRPR PR.ECPR PR.EMPR PR.GCPR PR.MLPR PR.OBIP PR.PRSN PR.UUPR Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.64e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.41 Z = 5 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 105 65 -40 NP2 215 54 -149 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.64e+21 6 162 N 0.00e+00 44 258 P -1.64e+21 45 65 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 1.32e+21 Mxy -7.84e+20 Mxz -5.17e+20 Myy -5.15e+20 Myz -6.88e+20 Mzz -8.08e+20 ############## ###################### ###################--------- #################------------- ################------------------ ###############--------------------- ##############------------------------ ##############--------------- -------- ############----------------- P -------- ---#########------------------ --------- -----######------------------------------- -------###-------------------------------- ----------#------------------------------- --------######-------------------------- --------############-----------------### ------################################ -----############################### ----############################## --############################ --########################## ################ ### ############ T Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -8.08e+20 -5.17e+20 6.88e+20 -5.17e+20 1.32e+21 7.84e+20 6.88e+20 7.84e+20 -5.15e+20 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20200115081448/index.html |
(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 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 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 1.0 120 80 5 3.05 0.3813 WVFGRD96 2.0 110 60 -30 3.26 0.5012 WVFGRD96 3.0 105 55 -40 3.35 0.5782 WVFGRD96 4.0 105 60 -40 3.38 0.6095 WVFGRD96 5.0 105 65 -40 3.41 0.6112 WVFGRD96 6.0 110 70 -25 3.41 0.6027 WVFGRD96 7.0 115 80 -20 3.43 0.5891 WVFGRD96 8.0 110 70 -25 3.47 0.5776 WVFGRD96 9.0 115 80 -20 3.49 0.5566 WVFGRD96 10.0 115 80 -20 3.50 0.5395 WVFGRD96 11.0 115 80 -20 3.52 0.5201 WVFGRD96 12.0 115 80 -20 3.53 0.5030 WVFGRD96 13.0 115 80 -20 3.54 0.4856 WVFGRD96 14.0 115 80 -20 3.55 0.4705 WVFGRD96 15.0 115 80 -20 3.56 0.4561 WVFGRD96 16.0 115 80 -20 3.57 0.4423 WVFGRD96 17.0 115 80 -20 3.58 0.4302 WVFGRD96 18.0 115 80 -20 3.58 0.4209 WVFGRD96 19.0 115 80 -20 3.59 0.4115 WVFGRD96 20.0 115 80 -20 3.60 0.4040 WVFGRD96 21.0 110 80 -25 3.60 0.3976 WVFGRD96 22.0 110 80 -25 3.61 0.3941 WVFGRD96 23.0 300 75 30 3.61 0.3923 WVFGRD96 24.0 300 75 30 3.61 0.3928 WVFGRD96 25.0 300 75 30 3.62 0.3940 WVFGRD96 26.0 300 75 30 3.62 0.3973 WVFGRD96 27.0 300 75 30 3.62 0.3991 WVFGRD96 28.0 300 75 30 3.63 0.4030 WVFGRD96 29.0 300 75 30 3.63 0.4058
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 5.0 105 65 -40 3.41 0.6112
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 +40 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 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 Bureau of Mines, UC Berkely, Caltech, UC San Diego, Saint Louis University, University of Memphis, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, the Oklahoma Geological Survey, TexNet, the Iris stations, the Transportable Array of EarthScope and other networks.
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: