Additional file 1 of Aftershock study of the 2019 Ambon earthquake using moment tensor inversion: identification of fault reactivation in northern Banda, Indonesia
Creators: name: Baskara, Aria W.
name: Sahara, David P.
name: Nugraha, Andri D.
name: Rusdin, Andi Azhar
name: Zulfakriza, Z.
name: Widiyantoro, Sri
name: Triyoso, Wahyu
name: Priyono, Awali
name: Puspito, Nanang T.
name: Shiddiqi, Hasbi Ash
name: Kusumawati, Dian
name: Rudyawan, Alfend
name: Elly, Erfin
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biophysics
Biochemistry
Physical Sciences not elsewhere classified
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology
Environmental Sciences not elsewhere classified
Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified
Cancer
Computational Biology

description: Additional file 1: Figure A1. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on October 18th, 2019 with origin time 11:36:23.37. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A2. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on October 18th, 2019 with an origin time of 19:44:24.72. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.12 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A3. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on October 25th, 2019 with origin time 02:08:18.08. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.10 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A4. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on October 26th, 2019 with origin time 04:22:44. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A5. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on October 26th, 2019 with an origin time of 19:02:58.44. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A6. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on October 30th, 2019 with origin time 05:04:52.20. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A7. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 8th, 2019 with origin time 04:37:07.35. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A8. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 9th, 2019 with origin time 03:29:20.49. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.10 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A9. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 9th, 2019 with an origin time of 15:39:46.86. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A10. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 11th, 2019 with origin time 04:35:25.73. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A11. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 12th, 2019 with an origin time of 10:40:40.15. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.10 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A12. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 12th, 2019 with an origin time of 11:01:44.47. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A13. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 15th, 2019 with an origin time of 21:02:01.44. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.07 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A14. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 15th, 2019 with an origin time of 22:30:11.76. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.09 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A15. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 17th, 2019 with origin time 05:11:21.99. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A16. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 18th, 2019 with origin time 09:04:29.90. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.08 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A17. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 18th, 2019 with an origin time of 13:11:19.47. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A18. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on November 20th, 2019 with an origin time of 21:43:27.90. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.05–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A19. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on December 4th, 2019 with an origin time of 13:48:07.42. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A20. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms for an aftershock event occurred on December 14th, 2019 with an origin time of 19:43:11.28. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.11 Hz and is shown at the top of the figure. Figure A21. The correlation between the observedand syntheticwaveforms using four different velocity models:crustal model for the central part of Java;PREM;a crustal model for eastern Indonesia, anda new regional crustal model around Ambon derived from Sahara et al.for an aftershock event on November 12th, 2019 with an origin time of 10:40:40.15. VR values for each station are indicated in blue. The frequency range used for this earthquake is 0.04–0.10 Hz. The red cross sign shows the station components with a relatively poor fitting. Figure A22Illustration of FMVAR parameter constructed by all acceptable solutions from MT inversionfor event ID 13. The best fit of nodal is shown by red nodal lines.The illustration of STVAR reflects the size of the space-time region corresponding to the given correlation threshold for event ID 13 denoted by black dots. Figure A23. The singular vectors Vand singular values wi determine the shape and orientation of the error ellipsoid. The singular vectors Vdefine the orientation of the ellipsoid in 6D-parameter spaceby determining the direction of the ellipsoid axis. The singular values define the size of the ellipsoid axis, and consequently the ellipsoid's shape. The data error, d, scales the overall size of the ellipsoid. The surface of the ellipsoid is characterized by the Δχ2= constant. Figure A24. Correlation diagram of focal MTs solution on each trial source depth. The MT solution from the depth of 20 km is used as mref. Figure A25.the diagram of strike, dip, and rake angles for the family of acceptable solutions versus misfit, Δχ2, for the MT solution reference with a depth of 20 km; strike, dip, rake angles are 300°, 38°, -40°, equivalent to 64°, 67°, -121°.Histograms of the strike, dip, rake, and the nodals. The optimal solution is shown by a red thick line, whereas the dotted-line vertical strips mark the histogram width, interactively determined by the user. Figure A26.the diagram of rake angles for the family of acceptable solutions versus misfit, Δχ2from event ID 9Histograms of the converted rake angles. The optimal solutionis shown by a red thick line, whereas the black dotted-line vertical strips mark the histogram width, interactively determined by the user. For rake 1, the data only distributed on one side, so we could only consider the single range on the right side of the optimal solution. Meanwhile the data from rake 2 show non normal distribution, in which data in the right side contribute more acceptable rakes. In this case, we simply choose the maximum deviation respect to the optimal solution. Table A1. Uncertainty of nodal planes from all 20 aftershock events