Location
2012/10/25 12:57:36 63.781 -148.382 10.1 3.50 Alaska
Arrival Times (from USGS)
Arrival time list
Felt Map
USGS Felt map for this earthquake
USGS Felt reports main page
Focal Mechanism
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2012/10/25 12:57:36:0 63.78 -148.38 10.1 3.5 Alaska
Stations used:
AK.BMR AK.BPAW AK.BWN AK.CCB AK.DOT AK.EYAK AK.FID AK.FYU
AK.GLI AK.GLM AK.HDA AK.HIN AK.KLU AK.MCK AK.MLY AK.NEA
AK.PIN AK.PPD AK.PPLA AK.RAG AK.RC01 AK.RIDG AK.RND AK.SAW
AK.SCM AK.TRF AK.WRH AK.YAH IU.COLA US.EGAK
Filtering commands used:
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 2.40e+21 dyne-cm
Mw = 3.52
Z = 17 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 81 61 96
NP2 250 30 80
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 2.40e+21 74 6
N 0.00e+00 5 259
P -2.40e+21 15 167
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx -1.94e+21
Mxy 4.98e+20
Mxz 1.23e+21
Myy -1.05e+20
Myz -6.50e+19
Mzz 2.05e+21
--------------
----------------------
----------------------------
----------###############-----
--------#######################---
------#############################-
-----#################################
-----############## ##################
---################ T ##################
---################# ##################-
---#####################################--
--####################################----
--#################################-------
--#############################---------
------####################--------------
--------------------------------------
------------------------------------
----------------------------------
------------------------------
---------------- ---------
------------- P ------
--------- --
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
2.05e+21 1.23e+21 6.50e+19
1.23e+21 -1.94e+21 -4.98e+20
6.50e+19 -4.98e+20 -1.05e+20
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20121025125736/index.html
|
Preferred Solution
The preferred solution from an analysis of the surface-wave spectral amplitude radiation pattern, waveform inversion and first motion observations is
STK = 250
DIP = 30
RAKE = 80
MW = 3.52
HS = 17.0
The NDK file is 20121025125736.ndk
The waveform inversion is preferred.
Moment Tensor Comparison
The following compares this source inversion to others
| SLU |
USGSMT |
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution
ENS 2012/10/25 12:57:36:0 63.78 -148.38 10.1 3.5 Alaska
Stations used:
AK.BMR AK.BPAW AK.BWN AK.CCB AK.DOT AK.EYAK AK.FID AK.FYU
AK.GLI AK.GLM AK.HDA AK.HIN AK.KLU AK.MCK AK.MLY AK.NEA
AK.PIN AK.PPD AK.PPLA AK.RAG AK.RC01 AK.RIDG AK.RND AK.SAW
AK.SCM AK.TRF AK.WRH AK.YAH IU.COLA US.EGAK
Filtering commands used:
hp c 0.02 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
br c 0.12 0.25 n 4 p 2
Best Fitting Double Couple
Mo = 2.40e+21 dyne-cm
Mw = 3.52
Z = 17 km
Plane Strike Dip Rake
NP1 81 61 96
NP2 250 30 80
Principal Axes:
Axis Value Plunge Azimuth
T 2.40e+21 74 6
N 0.00e+00 5 259
P -2.40e+21 15 167
Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm)
Component Value
Mxx -1.94e+21
Mxy 4.98e+20
Mxz 1.23e+21
Myy -1.05e+20
Myz -6.50e+19
Mzz 2.05e+21
--------------
----------------------
----------------------------
----------###############-----
--------#######################---
------#############################-
-----#################################
-----############## ##################
---################ T ##################
---################# ##################-
---#####################################--
--####################################----
--#################################-------
--#############################---------
------####################--------------
--------------------------------------
------------------------------------
----------------------------------
------------------------------
---------------- ---------
------------- P ------
--------- --
Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor:
R T P
2.05e+21 1.23e+21 6.50e+19
1.23e+21 -1.94e+21 -4.98e+20
6.50e+19 -4.98e+20 -1.05e+20
Details of the solution is found at
http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20121025125736/index.html
|
USGS/SLU Regional Moment Solution
12/10/25 12:57:36.35
Epicenter: 63.747 -148.436
MW 3.6
USGS/SLU REGIONAL MOMENT TENSOR
Depth 20 No. of sta: 35
Moment Tensor; Scale 10**14 Nm
Mrr= 2.19 Mtt=-2.36
Mpp= 0.17 Mrt= 0.76
Mrp= 1.30 Mtp=-0.17
Principal axes:
T Val= 2.90 Plg=64 Azm=286
N -0.35 23 76
P -2.54 11 171
Best Double Couple:Mo=2.7*10**14
NP1:Strike=287 Dip=39 Slip= 128
NP2: 62 60 63
|
Magnitudes
ML Magnitude
(a) ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Horizontal components; (b) 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.
(a) ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Vertical components (research); (b) 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.
Context
The next figure presents the focal mechanism for this earthquake (red) in the context of other events (blue) in the SLU Moment Tensor Catalog which are within ± 0.5 degrees of the new event. This comparison is shown in the left panel of the figure. The right panel shows the inferred direction of maximum compressive stress and the type of faulting (green is strike-slip, red is normal, blue is thrust; oblique is shown by a combination of colors).
Waveform Inversion
The focal mechanism was determined using broadband seismic waveforms. The location of the event and the
and stations used for the waveform inversion are shown in the next figure.
|
|
Location of broadband stations used for 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 n 3
lp c 0.10 n 3
br c 0.12 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 90 45 -90 3.14 0.3911
WVFGRD96 1.0 90 45 -90 3.08 0.2489
WVFGRD96 2.0 90 45 -90 3.28 0.4058
WVFGRD96 3.0 305 60 -35 3.29 0.2702
WVFGRD96 4.0 -5 25 -15 3.35 0.3054
WVFGRD96 5.0 210 -10 25 3.39 0.4361
WVFGRD96 6.0 210 -10 25 3.39 0.5178
WVFGRD96 7.0 205 15 25 3.38 0.5587
WVFGRD96 8.0 220 10 40 3.46 0.5792
WVFGRD96 9.0 235 15 55 3.46 0.5992
WVFGRD96 10.0 240 20 65 3.47 0.6167
WVFGRD96 11.0 240 25 70 3.49 0.6316
WVFGRD96 12.0 240 25 70 3.49 0.6450
WVFGRD96 13.0 250 25 80 3.49 0.6552
WVFGRD96 14.0 245 30 75 3.50 0.6624
WVFGRD96 15.0 245 30 75 3.51 0.6671
WVFGRD96 16.0 250 30 80 3.51 0.6687
WVFGRD96 17.0 250 30 80 3.52 0.6688
WVFGRD96 18.0 250 30 80 3.53 0.6668
WVFGRD96 19.0 250 30 80 3.54 0.6631
WVFGRD96 20.0 255 30 85 3.55 0.6580
WVFGRD96 21.0 255 30 85 3.56 0.6516
WVFGRD96 22.0 80 60 90 3.57 0.6436
WVFGRD96 23.0 80 60 90 3.58 0.6337
WVFGRD96 24.0 75 60 85 3.60 0.6220
WVFGRD96 25.0 75 60 85 3.60 0.6084
WVFGRD96 26.0 75 60 85 3.61 0.5924
WVFGRD96 27.0 75 60 85 3.61 0.5740
WVFGRD96 28.0 75 60 80 3.62 0.5549
WVFGRD96 29.0 75 60 80 3.63 0.5346
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 17.0 250 30 80 3.52 0.6688
The mechanism corresponding 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 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 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 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
hp c 0.02 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
|
|
|
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.
|
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:
- The origin time and epicentral distance are incorrect
- The velocity model used for the inversion is incorrect
- The velocity model used to define the P-arrival time is not the
same as the velocity model used for the waveform inversion
(assuming that the initial trace alignment is based on the
P arrival time)
Assuming only a mislocation, the time shifts are fit to a functional form:
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.
Discussion
Acknowledgements
Thanks also to the many seismic network operators whose dedication make this effort possible: University of Nevada Reno, University of Alaska, University of Washington, Oregon State University, University of Utah, Montana Bureas of Mines, UC Berkely, Caltech, UC San Diego, Saint Louis University, University of Memphis, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, the Iris stations and the Transportable Array of EarthScope.
Velocity Model
The WUS model used for the waveform synthetic seismograms and for the surface wave eigenfunctions and dispersion is as follows:
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
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 Dec 7 00:25:54 CST 2015
