Location

2006/02/16 12:28:33 66.93N 135.83W 1 3.9 Yukon, Canada

Arrival Times (from USGS)

Arrival time list

Felt Map

Focal Mechanism

 SLU Moment Tensor Solution
 2006/02/16 12:28:33 66.93N 135.83W 1 3.9 Yukon, Canada
 
 Best Fitting Double Couple
    Mo = 1.70e+22 dyne-cm
    Mw = 4.12 
    Z  = 11 km
     Plane   Strike  Dip  Rake
      NP1       85    90    30
      NP2      355    60   180
 Principal Axes:
   Axis    Value   Plunge  Azimuth
     T   1.70e+22     21     314
     N   0.00e+00     60      85
     P  -1.70e+22     21     216



 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
    Component  Value
       Mxx    -2.55e+21
       Mxy    -1.45e+22
       Mxz     8.46e+21
       Myy     2.55e+21
       Myz    -7.40e+20
       Mzz     2.07e+14
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     
                     #######-------                  
                 ############----------              
              #################-----------           
             ##   ##############-----------          
           #### T ###############------------        
          #####   ###############-------------       
         #########################-------------      
        ###########################-------------     
        ###########################-------------     
       ############################--------------    
       #############################---##########    
       ##########-------------------#############    
       -----------------------------#############    
        ----------------------------############     
        ----------------------------############     
         --------------------------############      
          -------------------------###########       
           ------   ---------------##########        
             ---- P --------------#########          
              ---   -------------#########           
                 ---------------#######              
                     ----------####                  
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     

 Harvard Convention
 Moment Tensor:
      R          T          F
  2.07e+14   8.46e+21   7.40e+20 
  8.46e+21  -2.55e+21   1.45e+22 
  7.40e+20   1.45e+22   2.55e+21 


Details of the solution is found at

http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/NEW/20060216122833/index.html
        

The focal mechanism was determined using broadband seismic waveforms. The location of the event and the station distribution are given in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Location of broadband stations used to obtain focal mechanism

Preferred Solution

The preferred solution from an analysis of the surface-wave spectral amplitude radiation pattern, waveform inversion and first motion observations is

      STK = 85
      DIP = 90
     RAKE = 30
       MW = 4.12
       HS = 11

The surface-wave is preferred. The waveform inversion is compatible with the surface-wave solution.

Waveform Inversion

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 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:

hp c 0.02 3
lp c 0.10 3
br c 0.11 0.25 n 4 p 2
The results of this grid search from 0.5 to 19 km depth are as follow:

           DEPTH  STK   DIP  RAKE   MW    FIT
WVFGRD96    0.5   275    55   -15   3.92 0.4803
WVFGRD96    1.0   275    60   -15   3.91 0.4943
WVFGRD96    2.0   280    90     0   3.87 0.5156
WVFGRD96    3.0   275    85    -5   3.92 0.5290
WVFGRD96    4.0    95    90     5   3.94 0.5414
WVFGRD96    5.0    95    65    10   4.01 0.5554
WVFGRD96    6.0    90    85     0   4.03 0.5736
WVFGRD96    7.0   270    85     5   4.05 0.5817
WVFGRD96    8.0   270    90     0   4.06 0.5800
WVFGRD96    9.0   270    90     5   4.07 0.5783
WVFGRD96   10.0   270    90     5   4.08 0.5735
WVFGRD96   11.0   270    85     5   4.09 0.5636
WVFGRD96   12.0   275    75    10   4.06 0.5582
WVFGRD96   13.0   275    75    10   4.06 0.5580
WVFGRD96   14.0   275    75     5   4.07 0.5540
WVFGRD96   15.0    95    80     0   4.07 0.5499
WVFGRD96   16.0    95    75     5   4.08 0.5474
WVFGRD96   17.0    95    75     5   4.09 0.5439
WVFGRD96   18.0    95    80     0   4.10 0.5389
WVFGRD96   19.0   290    30     5   4.15 0.5347

The best solution is

WVFGRD96    7.0   270    85     5   4.05 0.5817

The mechanism correspond to the best fit is
Figure 1. Waveform inversion focal mechanism

The best fit as a function of depth is given in the following figure:

Figure 2. Depth sensitivity for waveform mechanism

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 componnet is plotted to the same scale and peak amplitudes are indicated by the numbers to the left of each trace. The number in black at the rightr of each predicted traces 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 and because the velocity model used in the predictions may not be perfect. 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 bandpass filter used in the processing and for the display was

hp c 0.02 3
lp c 0.10 3
br c 0.11 0.25 n 4 p 2
Figure 3. Waveform comparison for depth of 8 km
Focal mechanism sensitivity at the preferred depth. The red color indicates a very good fit to thewavefroms. 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.

Surface-Wave Focal Mechanism


  NODAL PLANES 

  
  STK=      85.00
  DIP=      90.00
 RAKE=      29.99
  
             OR
  
  STK=     354.99
  DIP=      60.01
 RAKE=     179.99
 
 
DEPTH = 11.0 km
 
Mw = 4.12
Best Fit 0.7741 - P-T axis plot gives solutions with FIT greater than FIT90

First motion data

The P-wave first motion data for focal mechanism studies are as follow:

Sta Az(deg)    Dist(km)   First motion
INK        29  189 iP_D
DAWY      210  353 eP_X
WHY       176  692 eP_X

Surface-wave analysis

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.

Data preparation

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.
Best mechanism fit as a function of depth. The preferred depth is given above. Lower hemisphere projection

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.

Love-wave radiation patterns

Rayleigh-wave radiation patterns

Broadband station distributiuon

The distribution of broadband stations with azimuth and distance is

Sta Az(deg)    Dist(km)   
INK	   29	  189
DAWY	  210	  353
COLD	  280	  625
HARP	  226	  672
WHY	  176	  692
BMR	  217	  791
PIN	  198	  794
GALN	  102	  909
LUPN	   86	 1104
YKW1	  106	 1121
EKTN	   90	 1173
RES	   42	 1687
BBB	  162	 1689
EDM	  130	 1954
LLLB	  150	 1981
FCC	   93	 2258
WALA	  137	 2350
ULM	  110	 2894

Waveform comparison for this mechanism

Since the analysis of the surface-wave radiation patterns uses only spectral amplitudes and because the surfave-wave radiation patterns have a 180 degree symmetry, each surface-wave solution consists of four possible focal mechanisms corresponding to the interchange of the P- and T-axes and a roation of the mechanism by 180 degrees. To select one mechanism, P-wave first motion can be used. This was not possible in this case because all the P-wave first motions were emergent ( a feature of the P-wave wave takeoff angle, the station location and the mechanism). The other way to select among the mechanisms is to compute forward synthetics and compare the observed and predicted waveforms.

The fits to the waveforms with the given mechanism are show below:

This figure shows the fit to the three components of motion (Z - vertical, R-radial and T - transverse). For each station and component, the observed traces is shown in red and the model predicted trace in blue. The traces represent filtered ground velocity in units of meters/sec (the peak value is printed adjacent to each trace; each pair of traces to plotted to the same scale to emphasize the difference in levels). Both synthetic and observed traces have been filtered using the SAC commands:

hp c 0.02 3
lp c 0.10 3
br c 0.11 0.25 n 4 p 2

Discussion

The Future

Should the national backbone of the USGS Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) be implemented with an interstation separation of 300 km, it is very likely that an earthquake such as this would have been recorded at distances on the order of 100-200 km. This means that the closest station would have information on source depth and mechanism that was lacking here.

Acknowledgements

The digital data used in this study were provided by Natural Resources Canada through their AUTODRM site http://www.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/nwfa/autodrm/autodrm_req_e.php, and IRIS using their BUD interface

Appendix A

The figures below show the observed spectral amplitudes (units of cm-sec) at each station and the theoretical predictions as a function of period for the mechanism given above. The modified Utah model earth model was used to define the Green's functions. For each station, the Love and Rayleigh wave spectrail amplitudes are plotted with the same scaling so that one can get a sense fo the effects of the effects of the focal mechanism and depth on the excitation of each.

Quality Control

Here we tabulate the reasons for not using certain digital data sets

The following stations did not have a valid response files:

Last Changed Mon Feb 20 12:23:19 CST 2006