Location

Location ANSS

Focal Mechanism

USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2021/06/17 19:18:02:0 39.83 -87.29 7.7 3.8 Indiana Stations used: IU.CCM IU.WCI IU.WVT N4.J47A N4.K43A N4.L40A N4.L42A N4.M44A N4.M50A N4.N41A N4.N49A N4.N51A N4.O49A N4.P40B N4.P43A N4.P48A N4.Q44B N4.R49A N4.R50A N4.S44A N4.S51A N4.SFIN N4.T45B N4.T47A N4.T50A N4.U49A NM.BLO NM.CGM3 NM.CLTN NM.FFIL NM.FVM NM.HICK NM.OLIL NM.PARM NM.SIUC NM.SLM NM.USIN NM.UTMT NW.L44A OH.P51A US.AAM US.ACSO US.HDIL US.JFWS 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 = 6.10e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.79 Z = 6 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 125 90 -15 NP2 215 75 -180 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 6.10e+21 11 171 N 0.00e+00 75 305 P -6.10e+21 11 79 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 5.53e+21 Mxy -2.01e+21 Mxz -1.29e+21 Myy -5.53e+21 Myz -9.05e+20 Mzz 1.38e+14 ############## ###################### ########################---- ######################-------- ######################------------ ---##################--------------- -------##############----------------- -----------#########-------------------- -------------######------------------ -----------------#-------------------- P - -----------------###------------------ - ----------------######-------------------- ---------------##########----------------- -------------##############------------- ------------#################----------- ----------#####################------- --------#########################--- ------############################ ----########################## --########################## ############ ####### ######## T ### Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P 1.38e+14 -1.29e+21 9.05e+20 -1.29e+21 5.53e+21 2.01e+21 9.05e+20 2.01e+21 -5.53e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20210617191802/index.html

Preferred Solution

      STK = 125
      DIP = 90
     RAKE = -15
       MW = 3.79
       HS = 6.0

The NDK file is 20210617191802.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.

Moment Tensor Comparison

The following compares this source inversion to others

SLU

USGSMWR

USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2021/06/17 19:18:02:0 39.83 -87.29 7.7 3.8 Indiana Stations used: IU.CCM IU.WCI IU.WVT N4.J47A N4.K43A N4.L40A N4.L42A N4.M44A N4.M50A N4.N41A N4.N49A N4.N51A N4.O49A N4.P40B N4.P43A N4.P48A N4.Q44B N4.R49A N4.R50A N4.S44A N4.S51A N4.SFIN N4.T45B N4.T47A N4.T50A N4.U49A NM.BLO NM.CGM3 NM.CLTN NM.FFIL NM.FVM NM.HICK NM.OLIL NM.PARM NM.SIUC NM.SLM NM.USIN NM.UTMT NW.L44A OH.P51A US.AAM US.ACSO US.HDIL US.JFWS 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 = 6.10e+21 dyne-cm Mw = 3.79 Z = 6 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 125 90 -15 NP2 215 75 -180 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 6.10e+21 11 171 N 0.00e+00 75 305 P -6.10e+21 11 79 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 5.53e+21 Mxy -2.01e+21 Mxz -1.29e+21 Myy -5.53e+21 Myz -9.05e+20 Mzz 1.38e+14 ############## ###################### ########################---- ######################-------- ######################------------ ---##################--------------- -------##############----------------- -----------#########-------------------- -------------######------------------ -----------------#-------------------- P - -----------------###------------------ - ----------------######-------------------- ---------------##########----------------- -------------##############------------- ------------#################----------- ----------#####################------- --------#########################--- ------############################ ----########################## --########################## ############ ####### ######## T ### Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P 1.38e+14 -1.29e+21 9.05e+20 -1.29e+21 5.53e+21 2.01e+21 9.05e+20 2.01e+21 -5.53e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20210617191802/index.html

Regional Moment Tensor (Mwr) Moment 6.672e+14 N-m Magnitude 3.82 Mwr Depth 4.0 km Percent DC 73% Half Duration - Catalog US Data Source US 2 Contributor US 2 Nodal Planes Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 300° 88° 19° NP2 210° 71° 177° Principal Axes Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 7.102e+14 N-m 15° 167° N -0.966e+14 N-m 71° 307° P -6.137e+14 N-m 12° 73°

Magnitudes

mLg Magnitude

(a) mLg computed using the IASPEI formula; (b) mLg residuals ; the values used for the trimmed mean are indicated.

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

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 -30 o DIST/3.3 +40
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.03 n 3 
lp c 0.10 n 3 

           DEPTH  STK   DIP  RAKE   MW    FIT
WVFGRD96    1.0   305    80    25   3.72 0.5176
WVFGRD96    2.0   300    80   -15   3.73 0.5543
WVFGRD96    3.0   305    85    10   3.75 0.5714
WVFGRD96    4.0   125    90   -15   3.77 0.5780
WVFGRD96    5.0   125    90   -15   3.78 0.5819
WVFGRD96    6.0   125    90   -15   3.79 0.5836
WVFGRD96    7.0   125    90   -15   3.80 0.5826
WVFGRD96    8.0   125    80    10   3.82 0.5795
WVFGRD96    9.0   125    85    15   3.83 0.5787
WVFGRD96   10.0   125    85    15   3.84 0.5739
WVFGRD96   11.0   125    85    15   3.85 0.5657
WVFGRD96   12.0   125    85    15   3.86 0.5539
WVFGRD96   13.0   125    85    15   3.87 0.5389
WVFGRD96   14.0   125    85    10   3.88 0.5215
WVFGRD96   15.0   125    85    10   3.88 0.5022
WVFGRD96   16.0   125    85    10   3.89 0.4815
WVFGRD96   17.0   125    80    10   3.89 0.4600
WVFGRD96   18.0   125    80    10   3.90 0.4374
WVFGRD96   19.0   125    80    10   3.90 0.4148
WVFGRD96   20.0   305    75    15   3.90 0.3963
WVFGRD96   21.0   305    75    15   3.90 0.3787
WVFGRD96   22.0   310    70    20   3.90 0.3632
WVFGRD96   23.0   310    70    20   3.91 0.3499
WVFGRD96   24.0   310    70    20   3.91 0.3375
WVFGRD96   25.0   310    70    20   3.91 0.3270
WVFGRD96   26.0   310    70    20   3.91 0.3170
WVFGRD96   27.0    35    75    10   3.92 0.3206
WVFGRD96   28.0    35    75    10   3.93 0.3231
WVFGRD96   29.0    35    75     5   3.94 0.3247

The best solution is

WVFGRD96    6.0   125    90   -15   3.79 0.5836

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 -30 o DIST/3.3 +40
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.03 n 3 
lp c 0.10 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:

• The origin time and epicentral distance are incorrect
• The velocity model used for the inversion is incorrect
• The velocity model used to define the P-arrival time is not the same as the velocity model used for the waveform inversion (assuming that the initial trace alignment is based on the P arrival time)

 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 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 

Quality Control

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

The following stations did not have a valid response files: