Location

Location ANSS

2020/05/16 06:06:17 38.032 -118.254 5.0 3.7 Nevada

Focal Mechanism

 USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 ENS  2020/05/16 06:06:17:0  38.03 -118.25   5.0 3.7 Nevada
 
 Stations used:
   BK.DANT BK.WELL BK.WINE CI.BFS CI.CCC CI.CWC CI.FUR CI.GRA 
   CI.GSC CI.HAR CI.LRL CI.MTP CI.RAG CI.TIN IM.NV31 NC.LDH 
   NC.MDPB NN.BEK NN.CMK6 NN.DSP NN.GMN NN.LHV NN.MPK NN.PAH 
   NN.PIO NN.PNT NN.Q09A NN.REDF NN.SHP NN.V12A NN.WAK NN.WDEM 
   NN.WLDB SN.HEL US.ELK US.TPNV UU.PSUT 
 
 Filtering commands used:
   cut o DIST/3.3 -40 o DIST/3.3 +50
   rtr
   taper w 0.1
   hp c 0.03 n 3 
   lp c 0.08 n 3 
 
 Best Fitting Double Couple
  Mo = 2.95e+21 dyne-cm
  Mw = 3.58 
  Z  = 7 km
  Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
   NP1      142    80   165
   NP2      235    75    10
  Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
    T   2.95e+21     18      98
    N   0.00e+00     72     291
    P  -2.95e+21      4     189

 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component   Value
       Mxx    -2.81e+21
       Mxy    -8.40e+20
       Mxz     6.79e+19
       Myy     2.55e+21
       Myz     8.71e+20
       Mzz     2.56e+20
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     --------------                  
                 ----------------------              
              ##--------------------------           
             ###---------------------------          
           ######----------------------------        
          ########---------------------#######       
         ##########---------------#############      
        ############-----------#################     
        ##############------####################     
       ################--########################    
       ################-#########################    
       ##############-----##################   ##    
       ###########---------################# T ##    
        #########------------###############   #     
        #######---------------##################     
         ####-------------------###############      
          ##---------------------#############       
           ------------------------##########        
             ------------------------######          
              --------------------------##           
                 ------   -------------              
                     -- P ---------                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
 Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
      R          T          P
  2.56e+20   6.79e+19  -8.71e+20 
  6.79e+19  -2.81e+21   8.40e+20 
 -8.71e+20   8.40e+20   2.55e+21 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20200516060617/index.html
        

Preferred Solution

The preferred solution from an analysis of the surface-wave spectral amplitude radiation pattern, waveform inversion and first motion observations is

      STK = 235
      DIP = 75
     RAKE = 10
       MW = 3.58
       HS = 7.0

The NDK file is 20200516060617.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.

Moment Tensor Comparison

The following compares this source inversion to others
SLU
 USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 ENS  2020/05/16 06:06:17:0  38.03 -118.25   5.0 3.7 Nevada
 
 Stations used:
   BK.DANT BK.WELL BK.WINE CI.BFS CI.CCC CI.CWC CI.FUR CI.GRA 
   CI.GSC CI.HAR CI.LRL CI.MTP CI.RAG CI.TIN IM.NV31 NC.LDH 
   NC.MDPB NN.BEK NN.CMK6 NN.DSP NN.GMN NN.LHV NN.MPK NN.PAH 
   NN.PIO NN.PNT NN.Q09A NN.REDF NN.SHP NN.V12A NN.WAK NN.WDEM 
   NN.WLDB SN.HEL US.ELK US.TPNV UU.PSUT 
 
 Filtering commands used:
   cut o DIST/3.3 -40 o DIST/3.3 +50
   rtr
   taper w 0.1
   hp c 0.03 n 3 
   lp c 0.08 n 3 
 
 Best Fitting Double Couple
  Mo = 2.95e+21 dyne-cm
  Mw = 3.58 
  Z  = 7 km
  Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
   NP1      142    80   165
   NP2      235    75    10
  Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
    T   2.95e+21     18      98
    N   0.00e+00     72     291
    P  -2.95e+21      4     189

 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component   Value
       Mxx    -2.81e+21
       Mxy    -8.40e+20
       Mxz     6.79e+19
       Myy     2.55e+21
       Myz     8.71e+20
       Mzz     2.56e+20
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     --------------                  
                 ----------------------              
              ##--------------------------           
             ###---------------------------          
           ######----------------------------        
          ########---------------------#######       
         ##########---------------#############      
        ############-----------#################     
        ##############------####################     
       ################--########################    
       ################-#########################    
       ##############-----##################   ##    
       ###########---------################# T ##    
        #########------------###############   #     
        #######---------------##################     
         ####-------------------###############      
          ##---------------------#############       
           ------------------------##########        
             ------------------------######          
              --------------------------##           
                 ------   -------------              
                     -- P ---------                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
 Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
      R          T          P
  2.56e+20   6.79e+19  -8.71e+20 
  6.79e+19  -2.81e+21   8.40e+20 
 -8.71e+20   8.40e+20   2.55e+21 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20200516060617/index.html
	

Magnitudes

ML Magnitude


(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.

Context

The next figure presents the focal mechanism for this earthquake (red) in the context of other events (blue) in the SLU Moment Tensor Catalog which are within ± 0.5 degrees of the new event. This comparison is shown in the left panel of the figure. The right panel shows the inferred direction of maximum compressive stress and the type of faulting (green is strike-slip, red is normal, blue is thrust; oblique is shown by a combination of colors).

Waveform Inversion using wvfgrd96

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.
Location of broadband stations used for waveform inversion

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 +50
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.03 n 3 
lp c 0.08 n 3 
The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:

           DEPTH  STK   DIP  RAKE   MW    FIT
WVFGRD96    1.0   230    75   -20   3.30 0.4229
WVFGRD96    2.0   225    70   -35   3.46 0.5496
WVFGRD96    3.0   230    75   -20   3.47 0.5952
WVFGRD96    4.0   230    70   -15   3.50 0.6216
WVFGRD96    5.0   235    90   -15   3.52 0.6371
WVFGRD96    6.0   235    90   -15   3.55 0.6455
WVFGRD96    7.0   235    75    10   3.58 0.6491
WVFGRD96    8.0    55    85    15   3.61 0.6461
WVFGRD96    9.0    55    85    15   3.62 0.6377
WVFGRD96   10.0   235    90   -15   3.64 0.6241
WVFGRD96   11.0   235    75    10   3.65 0.6101
WVFGRD96   12.0    55    85   -15   3.67 0.5940
WVFGRD96   13.0    55    85   -15   3.68 0.5798
WVFGRD96   14.0    55    80   -15   3.70 0.5645
WVFGRD96   15.0    55    80   -15   3.71 0.5486
WVFGRD96   16.0    55    80   -15   3.71 0.5329
WVFGRD96   17.0    55    85   -15   3.72 0.5164
WVFGRD96   18.0    55    85   -15   3.73 0.4994
WVFGRD96   19.0    55    85   -15   3.73 0.4831
WVFGRD96   20.0   235    85    15   3.73 0.4672
WVFGRD96   21.0    55    90   -15   3.74 0.4506
WVFGRD96   22.0    55    90   -15   3.75 0.4357
WVFGRD96   23.0   235    75    15   3.75 0.4241
WVFGRD96   24.0   235    75    15   3.75 0.4131
WVFGRD96   25.0   235    75    15   3.76 0.4027
WVFGRD96   26.0   235    75    20   3.77 0.3939
WVFGRD96   27.0   235    75    20   3.77 0.3855
WVFGRD96   28.0   235    75    20   3.78 0.3788
WVFGRD96   29.0   235    75    15   3.78 0.3720

The best solution is

WVFGRD96    7.0   235    75    10   3.58 0.6491

The mechanism correspond to the best fit is
Figure 1. Waveform inversion focal mechanism

The best fit as a function of depth is given in the following figure:

Figure 2. Depth sensitivity for waveform mechanism

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 +50
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.03 n 3 
lp c 0.08 n 3 
Figure 3. Waveform comparison for selected depth. Red: observed; Blue - predicted. The time shift with respect to the model prediction is indicated. The percent of fit is also indicated.
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:

Assuming only a mislocation, the time shifts are fit to a functional form:

 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.

Discussion

Acknowledgements

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.

Velocity Model

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    

Quality Control

Here we tabulate the reasons for not using certain digital data sets

The following stations did not have a valid response files:

Last Changed Sat May 16 07:06:05 CDT 2020