The ANSS event ID is nm605053 and the event page is at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nm605053/executive.
2002/06/18 17:37:17 38.000 -87.756 16.1 4.6 Indiana
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2002/06/18 17:37:17:0 38.00 -87.76 16.1 4.6 Indiana Stations used: IU.CCM IU.WCI IU.WVT NM.BLO NM.MPH NM.PLAL NM.SIUC NM.SLM NM.UALR NM.UTMT SP.DWDAN US.ACSO US.BLA US.GOGA US.JFWS US.MIAR US.MYNC US.OXF 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 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 6.61e+22 dyne-cm Mw = 4.48 Z = 16 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 125 90 10 NP2 35 80 180 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 6.61e+22 7 350 N 0.00e+00 80 125 P -6.61e+22 7 260 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 6.11e+22 Mxy -2.23e+22 Mxz 9.40e+21 Myy -6.11e+22 Myz 6.58e+21 Mzz -1.00e+15 ## T ######### ###### ############# ##########################-- ##########################---- ###########################------- ---########################--------- -------####################----------- -----------################------------- -------------#############-------------- -----------------#########---------------- --------------------#####----------------- -------------------#------------------- P -------------------###----------------- ------------------#######------------- ------------------###########----------- ----------------###############------- -------------####################--- -----------####################### -------####################### ----######################## ###################### ############## Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -1.00e+15 9.40e+21 -6.58e+21 9.40e+21 6.11e+22 2.23e+22 -6.58e+21 2.23e+22 -6.11e+22 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20020618173717/index.html |
STK = 125 DIP = 90 RAKE = 10 MW = 4.48 HS = 16.0
The NDK file is 20020618173717.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to those provided by others. The purpose is to look for major differences and also to note slight differences that might be inherent to the processing procedure. For completeness the USGS/SLU solution is repeated from above.
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2002/06/18 17:37:17:0 38.00 -87.76 16.1 4.6 Indiana Stations used: IU.CCM IU.WCI IU.WVT NM.BLO NM.MPH NM.PLAL NM.SIUC NM.SLM NM.UALR NM.UTMT SP.DWDAN US.ACSO US.BLA US.GOGA US.JFWS US.MIAR US.MYNC US.OXF 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 0.10 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 6.61e+22 dyne-cm Mw = 4.48 Z = 16 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 125 90 10 NP2 35 80 180 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 6.61e+22 7 350 N 0.00e+00 80 125 P -6.61e+22 7 260 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 6.11e+22 Mxy -2.23e+22 Mxz 9.40e+21 Myy -6.11e+22 Myz 6.58e+21 Mzz -1.00e+15 ## T ######### ###### ############# ##########################-- ##########################---- ###########################------- ---########################--------- -------####################----------- -----------################------------- -------------#############-------------- -----------------#########---------------- --------------------#####----------------- -------------------#------------------- P -------------------###----------------- ------------------#######------------- ------------------###########----------- ----------------###############------- -------------####################--- -----------####################### -------####################### ----######################## ###################### ############## Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P -1.00e+15 9.40e+21 -6.58e+21 9.40e+21 6.11e+22 2.23e+22 -6.58e+21 2.23e+22 -6.11e+22 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20020618173717/index.html |
|
![]() |
The focal mechanism was determined using broadband seismic waveforms. The location of the event (star) and the stations used for (red) 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's 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 0.10 n 3The results of this grid search are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT WVFGRD96 0.5 30 75 25 4.15 0.3803 WVFGRD96 1.0 290 70 -25 4.19 0.4024 WVFGRD96 2.0 295 90 5 4.19 0.4371 WVFGRD96 3.0 300 90 -10 4.23 0.4455 WVFGRD96 4.0 295 75 -15 4.24 0.4464 WVFGRD96 5.0 295 70 -15 4.26 0.4628 WVFGRD96 6.0 295 70 -15 4.27 0.4879 WVFGRD96 7.0 295 75 -15 4.29 0.5159 WVFGRD96 8.0 295 75 -15 4.31 0.5433 WVFGRD96 9.0 300 80 -10 4.35 0.5759 WVFGRD96 10.0 305 80 -10 4.39 0.6093 WVFGRD96 11.0 305 80 -10 4.41 0.6385 WVFGRD96 12.0 305 80 -10 4.42 0.6613 WVFGRD96 13.0 305 85 -10 4.44 0.6807 WVFGRD96 14.0 305 85 -10 4.45 0.6943 WVFGRD96 15.0 305 85 -10 4.47 0.7017 WVFGRD96 16.0 125 90 10 4.48 0.7049 WVFGRD96 17.0 125 90 10 4.49 0.7039 WVFGRD96 18.0 305 85 -10 4.51 0.7010 WVFGRD96 19.0 305 85 -10 4.52 0.6955 WVFGRD96 20.0 305 85 -10 4.54 0.6876 WVFGRD96 21.0 125 90 10 4.54 0.6736 WVFGRD96 22.0 305 85 -10 4.55 0.6619 WVFGRD96 23.0 305 85 -10 4.56 0.6437 WVFGRD96 24.0 305 85 -10 4.57 0.6262 WVFGRD96 25.0 305 85 -10 4.57 0.6067 WVFGRD96 26.0 300 80 -5 4.57 0.5865 WVFGRD96 27.0 300 80 -5 4.57 0.5677 WVFGRD96 28.0 300 80 -5 4.58 0.5490 WVFGRD96 29.0 300 80 -5 4.58 0.5288
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 16.0 125 90 10 4.48 0.7049
The mechanism corresponding 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, the velocity model used in the predictions may not be perfect and the epicentral parameters may be be off. 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 0.10 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. The time scale is relative to the first trace sample. |
![]() |
Focal mechanism sensitivity at the preferred depth. The red color indicates a very good fit to the waveforms. 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.
The following figure shows the stations used in the grid search for the best focal mechanism to fit the surface-wave spectral amplitudes of the Love and Rayleigh waves.
![]() |
|
The surface-wave determined focal mechanism is shown here.
NODAL PLANES STK= 30.00 DIP= 84.99 RAKE= -170.00 OR STK= 299.12 DIP= 80.04 RAKE= -5.08 DEPTH = 19.0 km Mw = 4.58 Best Fit 0.8834 - P-T axis plot gives solutions with FIT greater than FIT90
![]() |
Surface wave analysis was performed using codes from Computer Programs in Seismology, specifically the multiple filter analysis program do_mft and the surface-wave radiation pattern search program srfgrd96.
Digital data were collected, instrument response removed and traces converted
to Z, R an T components. Multiple filter analysis was applied to the Z and T traces to obtain the Rayleigh- and Love-wave spectral amplitudes, respectively.
These were input to the search program which examined all depths between 1 and 25 km
and all possible mechanisms.
![]() |
|
![]() |
Pressure-tension axis trends. Since the surface-wave spectra search does not distinguish between P and T axes and since there is a 180 ambiguity in strike, all possible P and T axes are plotted. First motion data and waveforms will be used to select the preferred mechanism. The purpose of this plot is to provide an idea of the possible range of solutions. The P and T-axes for all mechanisms with goodness of fit greater than 0.9 FITMAX (above) are plotted here. |
![]() |
Focal mechanism sensitivity at the preferred depth. The red color indicates a very good fit to the Love and Rayleigh wave radiation patterns. 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. Because of the symmetry of the spectral amplitude rediation patterns, only strikes from 0-180 degrees are sampled. |
![]() |
![]() |
The CUS.model used for the waveform synthetic seismograms and for the surface wave eigenfunctions and dispersion is as follows (The format is in the model96 format of Computer Programs in Seismology).
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