Location

Location ANSS

Focal Mechanism

USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2017/05/01 14:18:15:0 59.74 -136.70 10.0 6.3 Alaska Stations used: AK.BARN AK.BCP AK.BESE AK.CTG AK.GLB AK.JIS AK.LOGN AK.MCAR AK.PIN AK.VRDI AT.SIT AT.YKU2 CN.DLBC CN.HYT NY.FARO NY.MAYO NY.WTLY TA.M27K TA.M30M TA.M31M TA.N31M TA.P33M Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -40 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.06 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.91e+25 dyne-cm Mw = 6.12 Z = 14 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 5 90 -155 NP2 275 65 0 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.91e+25 17 137 N 0.00e+00 65 5 P -1.91e+25 17 233 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 3.00e+24 Mxy -1.70e+25 Mxz -7.02e+23 Myy -3.00e+24 Myz 8.02e+24 Mzz 0.00e+00 #########----- #############--------- ###############------------- ################-------------- ##################---------------- ###################----------------- ####################------------------ ###############---###------------------- #####---------------##########---------- ##-------------------##############------- ---------------------##################--- ---------------------####################- ---------------------##################### --------------------#################### -------------------##################### ---- -----------#################### --- P -----------############ #### -- -----------############ T ### --------------############ # -------------############### ---------############# -----######### Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P 0.00e+00 -7.02e+23 -8.02e+24 -7.02e+23 3.00e+24 1.70e+25 -8.02e+24 1.70e+25 -3.00e+24 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20170501141815/index.html

Preferred Solution

      STK = 275
      DIP = 65
     RAKE = 0
       MW = 6.12
       HS = 14.0

The NDK file is 20170501141815.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.

Moment Tensor Comparison

The following compares this source inversion to others

SLU	GCMT	USGSW
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2017/05/01 14:18:15:0 59.74 -136.70 10.0 6.3 Alaska Stations used: AK.BARN AK.BCP AK.BESE AK.CTG AK.GLB AK.JIS AK.LOGN AK.MCAR AK.PIN AK.VRDI AT.SIT AT.YKU2 CN.DLBC CN.HYT NY.FARO NY.MAYO NY.WTLY TA.M27K TA.M30M TA.M31M TA.N31M TA.P33M Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -40 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.02 n 3 lp c 0.06 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.91e+25 dyne-cm Mw = 6.12 Z = 14 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 5 90 -155 NP2 275 65 0 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.91e+25 17 137 N 0.00e+00 65 5 P -1.91e+25 17 233 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx 3.00e+24 Mxy -1.70e+25 Mxz -7.02e+23 Myy -3.00e+24 Myz 8.02e+24 Mzz 0.00e+00 #########----- #############--------- ###############------------- ################-------------- ##################---------------- ###################----------------- ####################------------------ ###############---###------------------- #####---------------##########---------- ##-------------------##############------- ---------------------##################--- ---------------------####################- ---------------------##################### --------------------#################### -------------------##################### ---- -----------#################### --- P -----------############ #### -- -----------############ T ### --------------############ # -------------############### ---------############# -----######### Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P 0.00e+00 -7.02e+23 -8.02e+24 -7.02e+23 3.00e+24 1.70e+25 -8.02e+24 1.70e+25 -3.00e+24 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20170501141815/index.html	May 1, 2017, SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA, MW=6.3 Howard Koss CENTROID-MOMENT-TENSOR SOLUTION GCMT EVENT: C201705011418A DATA: II IU CU IC G DK MN GE LD KP L.P.BODY WAVES:109S, 263C, T= 40 MANTLE WAVES: 127S, 213C, T=125 SURFACE WAVES: 123S, 282C, T= 50 TIMESTAMP: Q-20170501185838 CENTROID LOCATION: ORIGIN TIME: 14:18:22.0 0.1 LAT:59.88N 0.00;LON:136.64W 0.01 DEP: 15.7 0.4;TRIANG HDUR: 3.3 MOMENT TENSOR: SCALE 10**25 D-CM RR= 0.495 0.015; TT= 0.728 0.017 PP=-1.220 0.015; RT=-0.195 0.048 RP=-0.992 0.054; TP= 2.660 0.015 PRINCIPAL AXES: 1.(T) VAL= 2.823;PLG=18;AZM=143 2.(N) 0.395; 69; 356 3.(P) -3.215; 11; 236 BEST DBLE.COUPLE:M0= 3.02*10**25 NP1: STRIKE=281;DIP=69;SLIP= 5 NP2: STRIKE=189;DIP=85;SLIP= 159 ########--- ###########-------- #############---------- ##############------------- ###############-------------- ################--------------- #####--------##---------------- ----------------#######---------- ----------------###########------ ---------------###############--- ---------------#################- --------------################# -- ---------################# - P --------######### ##### --------######### T #### ---------######### ## -------############ ---########	W-phase Moment Tensor (Mww) Moment 3.459e+18 N-m Magnitude 6.3 Mww Depth 17.5 km Percent DC 88 % Half Duration 7 s Catalog US Data Source US3 Contributor US3 Nodal Planes Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 282 76 23 NP2 186 68 165 Principal Axes Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 3.557e+18 N-m 26 145 N -0.205e+18 N-m 63 312 P -3.352e+18 N-m 5 53

Magnitudes

Context

Waveform Inversion using wvfgrd96

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:

cut o DIST/3.3 -40 o DIST/3.3 +70
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.02 n 3 
lp c 0.06 n 3 

           DEPTH  STK   DIP  RAKE   MW    FIT
WVFGRD96    1.0   285    65    25   5.80 0.3082
WVFGRD96    2.0   285    65    25   5.89 0.3852
WVFGRD96    3.0   280    70    10   5.89 0.4057
WVFGRD96    4.0   275    60    -5   5.93 0.4307
WVFGRD96    5.0   275    60    -5   5.96 0.4599
WVFGRD96    6.0   275    60    -5   5.98 0.4850
WVFGRD96    7.0   275    65    -5   6.00 0.5084
WVFGRD96    8.0   275    60    -5   6.04 0.5292
WVFGRD96    9.0   275    60    -5   6.06 0.5435
WVFGRD96   10.0   275    60     0   6.07 0.5541
WVFGRD96   11.0   275    65     0   6.08 0.5622
WVFGRD96   12.0   275    65     0   6.10 0.5673
WVFGRD96   13.0   275    65     0   6.11 0.5694
WVFGRD96   14.0   275    65     0   6.12 0.5695
WVFGRD96   15.0   275    65     0   6.13 0.5679
WVFGRD96   16.0   275    70     0   6.14 0.5644
WVFGRD96   17.0   275    70     0   6.15 0.5596
WVFGRD96   18.0   275    70     0   6.15 0.5530
WVFGRD96   19.0   275    70     5   6.16 0.5447
WVFGRD96   20.0   275    70     5   6.17 0.5354
WVFGRD96   21.0   275    70     5   6.18 0.5251
WVFGRD96   22.0   275    70     5   6.18 0.5136
WVFGRD96   23.0   275    70     5   6.19 0.5015
WVFGRD96   24.0   275    70     5   6.20 0.4885
WVFGRD96   25.0   275    70     5   6.20 0.4750
WVFGRD96   26.0   275    70     5   6.21 0.4614
WVFGRD96   27.0   275    70     5   6.21 0.4477
WVFGRD96   28.0   275    70     5   6.22 0.4337
WVFGRD96   29.0   275    70     5   6.22 0.4194

The best solution is

WVFGRD96   14.0   275    65     0   6.12 0.5695

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 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

cut o DIST/3.3 -40 o DIST/3.3 +70
rtr
taper w 0.1
hp c 0.02 n 3 
lp c 0.06 n 3 

Figure 3. Waveform comparison for selected depth. Red: observed; Blue - predicted. The time shift with respect to the model prediction is indicated. The percent of fit is also indicated.

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)

 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: