Left: mLg computed using the IASPEI formula. Center: mLg residuals versus epicentral distance ; the values used for the trimmed mean magnitude estimate are indicated. Right: residuals as a function of distance and azimuth.
The ANSS event ID is usc000nppd and the event page is at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usc000nppd/executive.
2014/03/25 14:01:19 35.743 -97.556 6.0 3 Oklahoma
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2014/03/25 14:01:19:0 35.74 -97.56 6.0 3.0 Oklahoma
Stations used:
GS.OK028 GS.OK029 US.WMOK
Filtering commands used:
cut a -30 a 100
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.03 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 3.98e+20 dyne-cm
Mw = 3.00
Z = 8 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 41 85 -170
NP2 310 80 -5
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 3.98e+20 4 175
N 0.00e+00 79 67
P -3.98e+20 11 266
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx 3.92e+20
Mxy -6.20e+19
Mxz -1.93e+19
Myy -3.80e+20
Myz 7.37e+19
Mzz -1.19e+19
##############
######################
############################
###########################---
----########################------
--------####################--------
------------###############-----------
----------------###########-------------
------------------########--------------
----------------------###-----------------
- -------------------#------------------
- P ------------------####----------------
- ----------------########--------------
------------------###########-----------
----------------###############---------
-------------##################-------
----------######################----
-------#########################--
----##########################
############################
########### ########
####### T ####
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
-1.19e+19 -1.93e+19 -7.37e+19
-1.93e+19 3.92e+20 6.20e+19
-7.37e+19 6.20e+19 -3.80e+20
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20140325140119/index.html
|
STK = 310
DIP = 80
RAKE = -5
MW = 3.00
HS = 8.0
The NDK file is 20140325140119.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
Given the availability of digital waveforms for determination of the moment tensor, this section documents the added processing leading to mLg, if appropriate to the region, and ML by application of the respective IASPEI formulae. As a research study, the linear distance term of the IASPEI formula for ML is adjusted to remove a linear distance trend in residuals to give a regionally defined ML. The defined ML uses horizontal component recordings, but the same procedure is applied to the vertical components since there may be some interest in vertical component ground motions. Residual plots versus distance may indicate interesting features of ground motion scaling in some distance ranges. A residual plot of the regionalized magnitude is given as a function of distance and azimuth, since data sets may transcend different wave propagation provinces.
Left: mLg computed using the IASPEI formula. Center: mLg residuals versus epicentral distance ; the values used for the trimmed mean magnitude estimate are indicated.
Right: residuals as a function of distance and azimuth.
Left: ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Horizontal components. Center: 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.
Right: Residuals from new relation as a function of distance and azimuth.
Left: ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Vertical components (research). Center: 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.
Right: Residuals from new relation as a function of distance and azimuth.
 |
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 a -30 a 100 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2The results of this grid search are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT
WVFGRD96 1.0 305 45 15 2.64 0.2436
WVFGRD96 2.0 305 70 -5 2.77 0.3469
WVFGRD96 3.0 310 70 5 2.84 0.3794
WVFGRD96 4.0 310 75 15 2.89 0.3941
WVFGRD96 5.0 310 75 5 2.91 0.4034
WVFGRD96 6.0 310 70 5 2.94 0.4092
WVFGRD96 7.0 310 75 0 2.96 0.4138
WVFGRD96 8.0 310 80 -5 3.00 0.4168
WVFGRD96 9.0 310 65 0 3.04 0.4144
WVFGRD96 10.0 305 70 0 3.04 0.4094
WVFGRD96 11.0 310 70 -5 3.07 0.4051
WVFGRD96 12.0 305 65 0 3.08 0.4003
WVFGRD96 13.0 305 60 0 3.10 0.3945
WVFGRD96 14.0 305 65 -5 3.11 0.3902
WVFGRD96 15.0 305 60 -5 3.13 0.3854
WVFGRD96 16.0 310 65 -10 3.15 0.3808
WVFGRD96 17.0 305 55 -5 3.16 0.3764
WVFGRD96 18.0 305 55 -5 3.18 0.3734
WVFGRD96 19.0 305 55 -5 3.19 0.3698
WVFGRD96 20.0 305 55 -10 3.20 0.3663
WVFGRD96 21.0 305 50 -10 3.22 0.3627
WVFGRD96 22.0 265 90 45 3.50 0.3635
WVFGRD96 23.0 85 90 -45 3.51 0.3654
WVFGRD96 24.0 265 90 40 3.53 0.3660
WVFGRD96 25.0 265 90 40 3.54 0.3663
WVFGRD96 26.0 260 90 35 3.64 0.3677
WVFGRD96 27.0 300 35 20 3.32 0.3603
WVFGRD96 28.0 305 35 25 3.33 0.3644
WVFGRD96 29.0 310 35 30 3.34 0.3690
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 8.0 310 80 -5 3.00 0.4168
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 a -30 a 100 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.10 n 3 br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
|
| 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 WUS.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
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