World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

Stress derivation from earthquake focal mechanisms

A. Barth, J. Reinecker and O. Heidbach

1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

2.

Single focal mechanisms (FMS) ........................................................................... 2

2.1.
2.1.1.
2.1.2.
2.1.3.

Determination of FMS............................................................................................. 2
First-motion of P waves .......................................................................................... 2
Moment tensor inversion......................................................................................... 4
Reliability of fault plane solutions .......................................................................... 5

2.2.
2.2.1.
2.2.2.
2.2.3.

Limits of the derivation of stress from FMS ........................................................... 5

General .................................................................................................................... 5
Fault plane ambiguity.............................................................................................. 6
Internal friction, stress orientations and possible plate boundary events ................ 6

3.

Formal stress inversions of focal mechanisms (FMF)........................................ 7

4.

Average or composite focal mechanisms (FMA) ................................................ 9

4.1.

Average focal mechanisms...................................................................................... 9

4.2.

Composite focal mechanisms.................................................................................. 9

5.

Tectonic stress regime ......................................................................................... 10

6.

World Stress Map Quality Ranking .................................................................. 11

References ............................................................................................................ 12

1. Introduction
One of the most evident effects of stress release in the crust are tectonic earthquakes. Due to the large
amount of existing earthquake focal mechanisms from regional studies and the steadily increasing
number of CMT solutions made routinely public by e.g. the Global CMT Project (formerly by the
Harvard seismology group) or the NEIC/USGS, single earthquake focal mechanisms (FMS) make up
the majority of data records in the WSM database. Focal mechanism data provide information on the
relative magnitudes of the principal stresses, so that a tectonic regime can be assigned.
The determination of principal stress orientations and relative magnitudes from these mechanisms
must be done with appreciable caution. Three types of data records from focal mechanisms are
distinguished in the WSM database: Single (FMS), formal inversions (FMF), and average/composite
(FMA) focal mechanisms. The main difference between these in terms of stress indication is their
reliability to indicate regional tectonic stress.

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

2. Single focal mechanisms (FMS)

2.1. Determination of FMS
Several methods for determining FMS are in use such as first motion of P waves, polarizations and
amplitudes of S waves (e.g. Khattri, 1973), the analysis of P/S amplitude ratios (e.g. Kisslinger et al.,
1981) and moment tensor inversion (e.g., Stein and Wysession, 2003). All these methods are using the
radiation pattern of seismic rays that expresses the orientation of the active fault and the slip direction
(Fig. 1). These patterns can be used to describe the kinematic processes in the seismic source. Here we
focus on the most frequently used methods:

P wave
tectonic earthquake

S wave

nodal
planes
Figure 1: P and S wave radiation patterns of a double couple source.

2.1.1. First-motion of P waves

P-waves radiate relative to the focus with compressional or dilatational initial motion (Fig. 1). The
signal changes in direction of the fault plane and the orthogonal auxiliary plane (both are called nodal
planes). Along these planes there is no radiation of P-waves. The first onset of the P-wave on a
seismogram of the vertical seismometer component is used to distinguish between a compressional
and dilatational first motion of the wavefront. The observed first motion is then projected backwards
along the ray path onto a conceptual homogeneous unit sphere around the focus (focal sphere), which
is thought to be a point source at the very beginning of the rupture event. Any P-wave ray path leaving
the source can be identified by two parameters: the azimuth from the source, , and the angle of
emergence, i0 (Fig. 2). The angle of emergence is a function of the distance, , between the source and
the recording station, and for near stations the crustal model in use. The geographic position of the
seismometer is transferred on the focal sphere to a point where the tangent to the ray at the source
intersects the focal sphere.
When all available data are plotted in the lower hemisphere of a stereographic projection, two
orthogonal nodal planes separating compressional from dilatational first motion can be drawn. The
axes of maximum shortening and maximum lengthening bisecting the quadrants are known as the P
and the T axes, respectively. Thus, the axis are principal strain axes that must not necessarily coincide
with the principal stress axes.

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

Figure 2: Focal sphere of an earthquake source. Shown is a ray path with azimuth and angle of emergence i0.

The P axis lies within the quadrant of dilatational initial motions, whereas the T axis lies within the
quadrant of compressional initial motions (Fig. 3). Both are perpendicular to the intersection of the
two nodal planes. The axis formed by this intersection is called the B- or the null axis. The FMS is
fully described by the orientation (dip direction and dip) of the P-, T-, and B-axes.
First motion on
seismograph at
distance

Symbol

Observation of P wave
first motion pattern
dilatational
first motions
compressional
first motions

nodal p
lane

compressional
first motions

nodal p
lane

dilatational
first motions

P (axis of max. shortening)

N

nodal planes

T (axis of max. lengthening)

quadrant of compressional
initial motions of P-waves

quadrant of dilatational
initial motions of P-waves

stereographic projection of lower hemisphere

Figure 3: Elements of a fault plane solution (see text for more explanation).

2.1.2. Moment tensor inversion

Moment tensor inversion as well uses the radiation pattern of body- and/or surface-waves. However,
here the complete waveform data is inverted to fit synthetic waveforms calculated for a reference earth
model (e.g. Jost and Hermann, 1989). The seismic moment tensor M is a symmetric second order
tensor, that describes a variety of seismic sources and consists of the nine couples of equivalent body
forces (Fig. 4).
The off-diagonal elements are assigned to opposite forces that are offset in direction normal to their
orientation and thus apply a net torque. However, because of the symmetry of the moment tensor, the
conservation of angular momentum is guaranteed. The diagonal elements correspond to force dipoles
3

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

acting along the coordinate axes. If the earth's structure is known and waveform data is available, the
seismic moment tensor M and thus the focal mechanism of an earthquake can be calculated by
inversion. More detailed introductions on moment tensors can be found in Jost and Hermann (1989) or
Stein and Wysession (2003) and various textbooks on seismology. Centroid moment tensors (CMT)
include the additional inversion for source time and location (Dziewonski et al., 1981) and are
routinely provided by the Global CMT Project (http://www.globalcmt.org).

Mxx

Mxy

Mxz

y
z

Myx

Myy

Myz

y
z

Mzx

Mzy

Mzz

y
z

y
z

.
Figure 4: The nine force couples of the seismic moment tensor.

2.1.3. Reliability of fault plane solutions

The quality of either solution, determined by moment tensor inversion or first-motion analysis,
depends on the knowledge of the earth structure, since both, the source process and the ray path,
determine the waveform data. Thus, an insufficient earth model may lead to mapping unexplainable
wave parts into the source, resulting in an erroneous focal mechanism. In general, the quality of the
solution depends on the number and the quality of the raw data (polarity readings, signal-to-noise
ratio, site-effects) and the geographical distribution of the data points relative to the source.
Additionally, methodological limitations are due to different fitting algorithm/error-minimisation
procedures and the choice of inversion parameters. Regarding moment tensor inversion, the used
frequency-band determines the accuracy of the earth model necessary for a reliable inversion (Barth et
al., 2007). While low-frequency recordings (long wavelengths) show effects of large-scale earth
structures only, high-frequency waveforms (short wavelengths) are influenced by local heterogeneities. This all has to be taken into account for estimating the reliability of a fault plane solution.
4

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

2.2. Limits of the derivation of stress from FMS

2.2.1. General
The principle axes of the derived moment tensor (P, B, and T) fully describe the focal mechanism and
are reported in the WSM database with their azimuth (= dip direction) and plunge (= dip) (in the
columns S1AZ, S1PL, S2AZ, S2PL, S3AZ, S3PL). Be aware, that the moment tensor axes of
earthquake focal mechanisms are not equal to the stress axes! To be strict, the only restriction one can
make is that the maximum principal stress (S1) lies within the dilatational quadrant of the focal
mechanism (McKenzie, 1969). However, since higher deviations between the P-, B- and T-axes and
the principal stress axes S1, S2, and S3 are unlikely they are used as a proxy for the orientation of the
stress axes. To account for this inaccuracy, data derived from single focal mechanism (FMS) are given
a quality of not better than C regardless of the size of the earthquake and how well the focal
mechanism is constraint (see Chapter 6). The limits of stress derivation from FMS are limited by the
fault-plane ambiguity and the coefficient of friction:

2.2.2. Fault plane ambiguity

Because of the symmetry of the force double couple and moment tensor on which it is based, the FMS
beachball diagram has a crystal-like regularity to it:

The two nodal planes are perpendicular to each other.

The pole of the auxiliary plane is colinear with the slip vector on the fault plane.

The B-axis is coincident with the intersection of the two nodal planes, and so is contained within
both of the nodal planes.

The P-axis is in the middle of the quadrant with dilatational (down) first motions, and the T-axis is
in the middle of the quadrant with compressional (up) first motions.

The T- and P-axes bisect the dihedral angles between the nodal planes; that is, the T- and P-axes
are 45 from the nodal planes.

The P-, T- and B-axes are orthogonal to one another.

The plane defined by the T- and P-axes also contains the vectors normal to the nodal planes, one
of which is the slip vector.

Therefore, on the basis of polarity readings or moment tensor inversion alone, it can not be decided
which nodal plane is the fault plane. This can only be decided by calculating higher degree moment
tensors (Dahm and Krger, 1999), the analysis of aftershock distributions (commonly located on the
rupture plane), field evidence from surface rupture in case of strong earthquakes, or seismotectonic
considerations. Taking into account additional data on azimuthal amplitude and frequency or waveform patterns, which are controlled by the Doppler effect of the moving source may allow resolving
this ambiguity too. The latter can be studied more easily in low-frequency teleseismic recordings
while in the local distance range high-frequency waveforms and amplitudes may be strongly
influenced by resonance effects due to low-velocity near-surface layers.

2.2.3. Internal friction, stress orientations and possible plate boundary events
One should also be aware that the assumed angle of 45 between the fault plane and S1 and S3 is only
true in case of new fracture generation in a homogeneous isotropic medium. In this case the principal
axes of the seismic moment tensor (the principal strain axes) would coinside with the principal stress
axes. However, this may not be correct in a heterogeneous anisotropic medium (as the crust), a given
stress environment and tectonic situation. In by far most cases tectonic earthquakes represent

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

reactivation of faults in shear. Because of the fault plane ambiguity it is not known a priori which of
the two nodal planes of the focal mechanism is the rupture plane and the P-, B- and T-axes are used as
a proxy for the orientation of the principal stress axes.
Townend (2006) reviews the difference between P-, B-, T- and S1-, S2-, S3-axes for plate boundary
strike-slip faults and shows that these faults are oriented at higher angles to the orientation of
maximum horizontal compressive stress SH than a typical internal friction assumed for the brittle
continental crust would suggest. Since earthquakes concentrate on plate boundaries the influence of
plate boundary geometry might be dominating the overall kinematics and therefore the inferred
"stress" orientations. Plate boundaries are characterized by faults with preferred orientations and
presumably include major faults with a low coefficient of internal friction. These faults can not sustain
high shear stresses, and thus can be reactivated even when SH is almost perpendicular to the fault
strike (e.g. Zoback et al, 1987). Thus, the orientation of the P-, B-, and T-axis from FMS could deviate
considerably from the principal stress orientations. To account for this inaccuracy data derived from
FMS are given a quality of not better than C regardless of the size of the earthquake and how well the
focal mechanism is constraint. Assuming that major plate boundaries are weak in general, FMS data
records in their vicinity are flagged as Possible Plate Boundary Events (PBE) when three criteria are
valid:
1. The event is located within a critical distance dcrit relative to the closest plate boundary segment.
This critical distance depends on the plate boundary type following the global plate boundary
type classification of Bird (2003). We estimated dcrit by means of a statistical analysis as being
45 km for continental transform faults, 80 km for oceanic transform faults, 70 km for oceanic
spreading ridges, and 200 km for subduction zones.
2. The angle between the strike of the nodal plane and the strike of the plate boundary is smaller
than 30.
3. The tectonic regime of the FMS reflects the plate boundary kinematics, i.e. thrust faulting (TF,
TS) near subduction zones, strike-slip faulting (SS, NS, TS) near oceanic and continental
transforms, and normal faulting (NF, NS) near oceanic spreading ridges.
Stress data records flagged as PBE are not down-ranked in quality and remain as C-quality in the
WSM database. By default they are not plotted on stress maps created with CASMO (online database
interface; http://www.world-stress-map.org/casmo). For each data record additional information (plate
boundary type and distance) is available in the database, which helps the user to evaluate the influence
of plate boundary kinematics on the stress orientation at a specific location.

3. Formal stress inversions of focal mechanisms (FMF)

A better estimation of the tectonic stress orientation can be achieved when a set of FMS is available
for a region with a homogeneous regional stress field. These mechanisms can be combined to
determine the orientations of the principle stress axes by a formal inversion. The formal stress
inversion of several FMS improves the quality of stress derivation, but is linked to two main
assumptions: (1) It is assumed that the chosen FMS lie in a region with a uniform stress field that is
invariant in space and time. The binning technique can be either hypothesis-driven to prove e.g. stress
rotations or be data-driven. Hardebeck and Michael (2004) give a detailed discussion on the
differences between the binning techniques. To overcome the subjectivity of manual binning Townend
and Zoback (2006) used an non-hierarchical clustering algorithm to group FMS in Japan for stress
inversion. (2) It is assumed, that the direction of earthquake slip occur in direction of maximum shear
stress (Wallace-Bott hypothesis, Bott, 1959).

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

A stress inversion determines the orientation of the principal stresses that minimises the average
difference between the slip vector and the orientation of maximum shear stress on the inverted faults.
This angle is commonly called misfit angle. Different algorithms of stress inversion have been
developed by various authors (the most common routines are described by Gephart and Forsyth, 1984;
Michael, 1984; Angelier, 1979; Rivera and Cisternas, 1990). A major difference between stress
inversion techniques is the handling of the fault plane ambiguity. Since stress inversion was first used
for slickenside field data, some algorithms need the fault plane to be determined a priori. In most cases
this is not possible, since further information is to determine the fault plane (see Chapter 2.2.2.).
Angelier (2002) provided a method automatically choosing the fault plane. Gephart and Forsyth
(1984) perform the inversion as if all nodal planes were independent data, primary and remove the
worse fitted auxiliary planes in a second step. The final inversion then includes the planes that are best
fitted by a uniform stress field. A third approach applies a bootstrap routine that picks x mechanisms at
random from the original x events. Each dataset than will have some mechanisms repeated two or
more times (Michael, 1987). Random decisions of the true fault plane and a variety of bootstrapped
datasets finally give a statistical determination of the stress orientation. A recent approach additionally
includes a-priori information on the stress field into a probabilistic stress analysis of FMS that
accounts for the fault plane ambiguity by calculating probability density functions for the orientations
of the principal stress axes (Arnold and Townend, 2007). The different inversion techniques all result
in a deviatoric stress tensor, which gives four parameters, the orientation of the three principal stress
axes and the relative magnitudes of the intermediate principal stress with respect to the maximum and
minimum principal stress. However, stress inversion is not capable of determining stress magnitudes.
The three principal stress axes (reported in the WSM database columns S1AZ, S1PL, S2AZ, S2PL,
S3AZ, S3PL) plus the stress ratio of the stress magnitudes RATIO=(S1-S2)/(S2-S3) build up the
reduced stress tensor. For the incorporation of new FMF data the specification of RATIO is
mandatory. The availability of this information enables to calculate the shape and orientation of the
stress ellipsoid and thus the true orientation of SH. It is recommended to use the formulas given by
Lund and Townend (2007) for SH-determination when the reduced (or full) stress tensor is available.
The adequate binning into regions with a constant stress field in space and time is crucial, but still
under debate, especially for regions near to major plate boundaries. Here, dominating fault orientations
may distort the inferred stress orientations, what may also count for some intraplate regions. It is still
in question, whether plate boundary faults are fundamentally different from smaller intraplate faults.
For the discussion of these aspects we refer to the studies of Townend and Zoback (2006) and
Hardebeck and Michael (2004).

4. Average or composite focal mechanisms (FMA)

In contrary to a stress inversion, averaging the data or the construction of composite solutions does not
take into account the conceptional difference between the stress tensor and the moment tensor (see
Chapter 2.2.) and therefore this technique is getting out of use.

4.1. Average focal mechanisms

Despite the fact that the P-axis of a focal mechanism does not necessarily correlate with the orientation
of S1, regional compilations show that the average orientation for P-, B-, and T-axes determined from
a number of earthquakes gives a good indication of the maximum compressive stress orientation
throughout a region (Sbar and Sykes, 1973, Zoback and Zoback, 1980). Because of the circular
distribution of P-, B-, and T-axes, they need careful treatment when being averaged, and ignoring the
plunge when averaging trends is also problematic (Lund and Townend, 2007).

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

Anyhow, there are no advantages of an average mechanism compared to FMF since the matter of an
adequate binning is relevant for both methods. In future, FMF should be preferred to FMA, since FMF
considers the difference between stress tensor and moment tensor, where FMA does not.

4.2. Composite focal mechanisms

When the main shock of an earthquake is only detected within a limited region and the amount and
azimuthal distribution of first motions is not sufficient to construct a focal mechanism from this single
event, composite focal mechanisms are constructed by superimposing data from aftershocks or other
events rupturing the same fault segment (Sbar et al., 1972). For this one major assumption is that all
aftershocks used have the same focal mechanism, i.e. have the same radiation pattern, as the main
shock. This is reasonable if aftershocks occur along the same fault as the main shock. However, in
practice, aftershocks do not necessarily occur along the same fault plane responsible for the main
shock. Some aftershocks may occur on faults of a much different orientation from the main shock.
Hence, composites rarely show a perfect separation of compressional and dilatational first motions.
Aftershocks are often recorded by portable seismic networks from near distance. Superposition
requires locating each aftershock in order to calculate and i0 for each portable recording station. A
composite plot of ray paths cutting the focal sphere is made by moving the centre of the stereonet to
the hypocentre of each aftershock. Because of the close recording distance to the aftershock, an upper
hemisphere projection of and i0 is more convenient. Calculation of the appropriate angle of
emergence becomes more critical for larger and deeper earthquakes in areas with a more complex
crustal structure.

5. Tectonic stress regime

As the focal mechanism gives information on the faulting type (normal faulting, NF; strike-slip SS;
thrust faulting TF), the relative magnitudes of SH, Sh and SV are known. Besides the NF, TF, and SS
categories, combinations of NF with SS (transtension NS) and TF with SS (transpression TS) exist
(Zoback, 1992). NS is appropriate where the maximum stress or P-axis is the steeper plunging of the
P- and B-axis. TS is a appropriate where the minimum stress or T-axis is the steeper plunging of the
B- and T-axis. The plunges (pl) of P-, B-, and T-axis (or 1, 2, and 3 axis for FMF data records) are
used to assign the appropriate stress regime to the data record (see Table 1 and Figure 5).

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

Figure 5: Schematic illustration of the five general tectonic regimes and the according orientations of the
principle stress axes (after Anderson, 1951, and Zoback, 1992).
Table 1: Tectonic regime assignment (Zoback, 1992).

P/S1-axis

B/S2-axis

T/S3-axis

Regime

SH-azimuth

pl > 52

pl < 35

NF

azim. of B-axis

40 < pl < 52

pl < 20

NS

azim. of T-axis + 90

pl < 40

pl > 45

pl < 20

SS

azim. of T-axis + 90

pl < 20

pl > 45

pl < 40

SS

azim. of P-axis

pl < 20

40 < pl < 52

TS

azim. of P-axis

pl < 35

pl > 52

TF

azim. of P-axis

The exact cut-off values defining the tectonic regime categories are subjective. Zoback (1992) used
the broadest possible categorization consistent with actual P-, B-, and T-axes values. The choice of
axes used to infer the SH orientation is displayed in the table above, e.g. the SH orientation is taken as
the azimuth of the B-axis in case of a pure normal faulting regime (NF) and as 90 + T-axis azimuth in
the NS case when the B-axis generally plunges more steeply than the T-axis. The data which fall
outside these categories are assigned to an unknown stress regime ("U") and are given an E-quality
indicating that the maximum horizontal stress azimuth is not defined.

6. World Stress Map Quality Ranking

All data in the WSM database are quality ranked to facilitate comparison between different indicators
of stress orientation (e.g. focal mechanism solutions, drilling-induced tensile fractures, overcoring).
The quality ranking criteria for stress orientations determined from focal mechanisms are presented in
Tables 2, 3, and 4.

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

Ideally, the regional stress field would be estimated from a number of events in a given area with a
broad azimuthal distribution of fault orientations. The more reliable stress orientation is reflected in
the higher WSM quality for the formal inversion of several focal mechanisms (FMF). A-quality data
are believed to record the stress orientation to within 15, B-quality data to within 20. Single focal
mechanisms (FMS) are given a C-quality indicating their reliability to within 25.
Composite as well as average focal mechanisms (FMA) do not take into account the conceptional
difference between the stress tensor and the moment tensor (see chapter 2.2). So they might be even
less precise in fault plane orientations than FMS and are assigned to D-quality (reliable within 40).
Criteria for down-ranking the WSM quality are:
-

a low number of used seismic stations

large gaps in the azimuthal coverage

instability of the solution due to minor changes in the dataset or in the inversion parameters

a high CLVD and/or isotropic part in the moment tensor (Jost and Hermann, 1989)

a high mathematical standard deviation and data variance

Table 2: World Stress Map quality ranking criteria for formal stress inversions FMF (s.d. = standard deviation).

A-Quality
Formal inversion of 15
well constrained single
event solutions in close
geographic proximity
and s.d. or misfit
angle 12

B-Quality
Formal inversion of 8
well constrained single
event solutions in close
geographic proximity
and s.d. or misfit
angle 20

C-Quality

D-Quality

E-Quality

Table 3: World Stress Map quality ranking criteria for single focal mechanisms FMS (M = local magnitude).

AQualit
y

B-Quality

C-Quality

Well constraint
single event solution
(M 2.5)

D-Quality

E-Quality

Well constrained single

event solution (M < 2.5)

(e.g. CMT solutions)

Mechanism with
P,B,T axes all
plunging 25-40
Mechanism with P
and T axes both
plunging 40-50

Table 4: World Stress Map quality ranking criteria for average and composite focal mechanisms FMA.

AQualit
y

B-Quality

C-Quality

D-Quality

Average of P-axis

Composite solutions

E-Quality

10

Mechanism with
P,B,T axes all
plunging 25-40
Mechanism with P
and T axes both
plunging 40-50

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

Acknowledgements
We thank John Townend for helpful discussions that complement and improve these guidelines.

References
Anderson, E.M., 1951. The dynamics of faulting and dyke formation with application to Britain, 2nd
ed., Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd.
Angelier, J., 1979. Determination of the mean principal directions of stresses for a given fault
population, Tectonophysics, 56, T17-T26.
Angelier, J., 2002. Inversion of earthquake focal mechanisms to obtain the seismotectonic stress IV - a
new method free of choice among the nodal planes, Geophys. J. Int., 150, 588-609.
Arnold, R. and Townend, J., 2007. A Bayesian approach to estimating tectonic stress from
seismological data. Geophys. J. Int., 170, 1336-1356.
Barth, A., Wenzel, F. and Giardini, D., 2007. Frequency sensitive moment tensor inversion for light to
moderate magnitude earthquakes in eastern Africa. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15302.
Bird, P., 2003. An updated digital model for plate boundaries. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 4(3):
1027, doi:10.1029/2001GC000252.
Bott, M.H.P., 1959. The mechanics of oblique slip faulting. Geol. Mag., 96, 109-117.
Byerlee, J.D., 1978. Friction of rocks. Pure Appl. Geophys., 116: 615-626.
Dahm, T. and Krger, F., 1999. Higher-degree moment tensor inversion using far-field broad-band
recordings: theory and evaluation of the method with application to the 1994 Bolivia deep
earthquake. Geophys. J. Int., 137, 35-50.
Dziewonski, A.M., Chou, T.-A. and Woodhouse, J.H., 1981. Determination of earthquake source
parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity. J. Geophys. Res., 86:
2825-2852.
Gephart, J.W. and Forsyth, D.W., 1984. An Improved Method for Determining the Regional Stress
Tensor Using Earthquake Focal Mechanism Data: Application to the San Fernando Earthquake
Sequence, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 9305-9320.
Hardebeck, J.L., Michael, A., 2004. Stress orientations at intermediate angels to the San Andreas
Fault, California. J. Geophys. Res., 109(B11303): doi:10.1029/2004JB003239.
Jost, M.L. and Hermann, R. B., 1989. A Student's Guide to and Review of Moment Tensors, Seism.
Res. Lett., 60, 37-57.
Khattri, K., 1973. Earthquake focal mechanism studiesA review, Earth Sci. Rev., 9, 19-63.
Kisslinger, C., Bowman, J.R., and Koch, K., 1981. Procedures for computing focal mechanisms from
local (SV/P) data, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 71, 17191729.
Lund, B. and Townend, J., 2007. Calculating horizontal stress orientations with full or partial
knowledge of the tectonic stress tensor. Geophysical Journal International, 170, 1328-1335.
McKenzie, D.P., 1969. The relation between fault plane solutions for earthquakes and the directions of
the principal stress. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 59, 591-601.
Michael, A.J., 1984. Determination of stress from slip data: Faults and folds, J. Geophys. Res., 89,
11,517-11,526.
Michael, A.J., 1987. Use of Focal Mechanisms to Determine Stress: A Control Study, J. Geophys.
Res., 92, 357-368.
Rivera, L. and Cisternas, A., 1990. Stress tensor and fault plane solutions for a population of
earthquakes . Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 80, 600-614.
Sbar, M.L., Barazangi, M., Dorman, J., Scholz, C.H., Smith, R.B., 1972. Tectonics of the
Intermountain Seismic Belt, western United States, Microearthquake seismicity and composite
fault plane solutions. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 83: 13-28.

11

World Stress Map Project

Guidelines: Focal mechanisms

Sbar, M.L., Sykes, L.R., 1973. Contemporary compressive stress and seismicity in eastern North
America, An example of intraplate tectonics. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 84: 1861-1882.
Stein, S. and Wysession, M., 2003. An introduction to seismology, earthquakes, and earth structure,
Blackwell Publishing.
Townend, J. 2006. What do Faults Feel? Observational Constraints on the Stresses Acting on
Seismogenic Faults, Earthquakes: Radiated Energy and the Physics of Faulting, Geophysical
Monograph Series 170, 313-327.
Townend, J. and Zoback, M.D., 2006. Stress, strain, and mountain building in central Japan. J.
Geophys. Res., 111, B03411.
Wallace, R.E., 1951. Geometry of shearing stress and relation to faulting. J. Geol., 59: 118-130.
Zoback, M.L., 1992. First- and second-order patterns of stress in the lithosphere: The World Stress
Map project. J. Geophys. Res., 97, 11,703-11,728.
Zoback, M.L., Zoback, M.D., 1980. Faulting patterns in north-central Nevada and strength of the
crust. Journal of Geophysical Research, 85: 275-284.
Zoback, M.D., Zoback, M.L., Mount, V.S., Suppe, J., Eaton, J.P., Healy, J.H., Oppenheimer, D.H.,
Reasenberg, P.A., Jones, L., Raleigh, C.B., I.G., W., Scotti, O., Wentworth, C., 1987. New
Evidence of the State of Stress of the San Andreas Fault System. Science, 238: 1105-1111.
World Stress Map Project, 2008

12