1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 67, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 67, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The source mechanism of a microseismic event, or any small earthquake, can be described by its moment tensor. The source type is described by a 3‐vector formed from the ordered, principal (eigen) values of the moment tensor and the source orientation from the normalized eigenvectors. The direction and magnitude of the principal‐value vector describe the source type and scalar moment, respectively. The source type can be described by the position of the principal‐value vector on the permitted lune of a unit sphere. As with any projection or cartography mapping, many parameterizations have been suggested to describe this position. Two dominate in the literature – the Riedesel–Jordan and Hudson–Pearce–Rogers parameters. All have advantages and disadvantages. In this paper, we review the most popular parameterizations, illustrating their similarities and the distortion they cause in the mapping between a uniform distribution of source types in the permitted lune and the parameter space. A new parameterization is suggested based on the solid angles formed by the principal‐value vector. This has the advantage of being simple to define geometrically in the principal‐value space (although the formulae are complicated), being naturally normalized and having a more uniform mapping than other parameterizations. However, we do not claim that this is the best or ideal parameterization, just a reasonable choice.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12755
2019-03-11
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12755
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AsoN., OhtaK. and IdeS.2016. Mathematical review of source‐type diagrams. Earth, Planets and Space68, 52, 1–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BrownJ.L. and WorseyA.J.1992. Problems with defining barycentric coordinates for the sphere. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis26, 37–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ChapmanC.H. and LeaneyW.S.2012. A new moment‐tensor decomposition for seismic events in anisotropic media. Geophysical Journal International188, 343–370.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. CoxeterH.S.M.1969. Introduction to Geometry, 2nd edn. John Wiley, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. EatonD.W. and ForouhidehF.2010. Microseismic moment tensors: the good, the bad and the ugly. CSEG Recorder35, 44–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. FillmoreD.W. and FillmoreJ.P.2014. Whitney forms for spherical triangles I: the Euler, Cagnoli, and Tuynman area formulas, barycentric coordinates, and construction with the exterior calculus mathematical papers are often only published in arXiv:1404.6592.
  7. ForouhidehF. and EatonD.W.2010. Are double‐couples over‐represented in microseismic focal mechanism studies? GeoCanada 2010 – Working with the Earth.
  8. HudsonJ.A., PearceR.G. and RogersR.M.1989. Source type plots for inversion of the moment tensor. Journal of Geophysical Research94, 765–774.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. RiedeselM.A. and JordanT.H.1989. Display and assessment of seismic moment tensors. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America79, 85–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. SilverP.G. and JordanT.H.1982. Optimal estimation of scalar seismic moment. Geophysical Journal of Royal Astronomical Society70, 755–787.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. TapeW. and TapeC.2012. A geometric setting for moment tensors. Geophysical Journal International190, 476–498.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. TapeW. and TapeC.2015. A uniform parameterization of moment tensors. Geophysical Journal International202, 2074–2081.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. TapeW. and TapeC.2019. The eigenvalue lune as a window on moment tensors. Geophysical Journal International216, 19–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. TuynmanG.M.2013. Areas of spherical and hyperbolic triangles in terms of their midpoints. arXiv:1307.2567.
  15. van OosteromA. and StrackeeJ.1983. The solid angle of a plane triangle. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringBME‐30, 125–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Vavryc̆ukV.2015. Moment tensor decompositions revisited. Journal of Seismology19, 231–252.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. WhitneyH.1957. Geometric Integration Theory. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12755
Loading
Yet another moment‐tensor parameterization
Geophysical Prospecting 67, 485 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12755
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12755
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12755
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Mathematical; Microseismic monitoring; Seismic theory

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error