The ANSS event ID is nc72766716 and the event page is at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nc72766716/executive.
2017/02/23 04:59:03 36.545 -121.138 8.7 2.83 Washington
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2017/02/23 04:59:03:0 36.54 -121.14 8.7 2.8 Washington Stations used: CN.CLRS CN.LLLB CN.OZB CN.PGC UO.JESE UO.MINN UO.RAIN US.NLWA UW.FORK UW.HOOD UW.LEBA UW.LON UW.LRIV UW.LTY UW.MRBL UW.OMAK UW.PHIN UW.RADR UW.STOR UW.UMAT UW.WISH UW.WOLL UW.YACT Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.07 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.17e+22 dyne-cm Mw = 3.98 Z = 17 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 306 64 134 NP2 60 50 35 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.17e+22 50 266 N 0.00e+00 39 103 P -1.17e+22 8 6 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx -1.14e+22 Mxy -8.13e+20 Mxz -2.08e+21 Myy 4.73e+21 Myz -5.94e+21 Mzz 6.64e+21 ------- P ---- ----------- -------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------ ######---------------------------- #############----------------------- ##################-------------------# ######################---------------### #########################------------### ############################---------##### ######### ##################------###### ######### T ####################---####### ######### ############################## ###############################---###### ############################-------##### #########################----------### ####################--------------## ---###########-------------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------- -------------- Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P 6.64e+21 -2.08e+21 5.94e+21 -2.08e+21 -1.14e+22 8.13e+20 5.94e+21 8.13e+20 4.73e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20170223045903/index.html |
STK = 60 DIP = 50 RAKE = 35 MW = 3.98 HS = 17.0
The NDK file is 20170223045903.ndk The waveform inversion is preferred.
The following compares this source inversion to those provided by others. The purpose is to look for major differences and also to note slight differences that might be inherent to the processing procedure. For completeness the USGS/SLU solution is repeated from above.
USGS/SLU Moment Tensor Solution ENS 2017/02/23 04:59:03:0 36.54 -121.14 8.7 2.8 Washington Stations used: CN.CLRS CN.LLLB CN.OZB CN.PGC UO.JESE UO.MINN UO.RAIN US.NLWA UW.FORK UW.HOOD UW.LEBA UW.LON UW.LRIV UW.LTY UW.MRBL UW.OMAK UW.PHIN UW.RADR UW.STOR UW.UMAT UW.WISH UW.WOLL UW.YACT Filtering commands used: cut o DIST/3.3 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.07 n 3 Best Fitting Double Couple Mo = 1.17e+22 dyne-cm Mw = 3.98 Z = 17 km Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 306 64 134 NP2 60 50 35 Principal Axes: Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.17e+22 50 266 N 0.00e+00 39 103 P -1.17e+22 8 6 Moment Tensor: (dyne-cm) Component Value Mxx -1.14e+22 Mxy -8.13e+20 Mxz -2.08e+21 Myy 4.73e+21 Myz -5.94e+21 Mzz 6.64e+21 ------- P ---- ----------- -------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------ ######---------------------------- #############----------------------- ##################-------------------# ######################---------------### #########################------------### ############################---------##### ######### ##################------###### ######### T ####################---####### ######### ############################## ###############################---###### ############################-------##### #########################----------### ####################--------------## ---###########-------------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------- -------------- Global CMT Convention Moment Tensor: R T P 6.64e+21 -2.08e+21 5.94e+21 -2.08e+21 -1.14e+22 8.13e+20 5.94e+21 8.13e+20 4.73e+21 Details of the solution is found at http://www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/20170223045903/index.html |
Regional Moment Tensor (Mwr) Moment 1.221e+15 N-m Magnitude 4.0 Mwr Depth 16.0 km Percent DC 72 % Half Duration – Catalog US Data Source US2 Contributor US2 Nodal Planes Plane Strike Dip Rake NP1 294 59 119 NP2 67 42 51 Principal Axes Axis Value Plunge Azimuth T 1.118e+15 N-m 64 255 N 0.185e+15 N-m 24 98 P -1.303e+15 N-m 9 4 |
Given the availability of digital waveforms for determination of the moment tensor, this section documents the added processing leading to mLg, if appropriate to the region, and ML by application of the respective IASPEI formulae. As a research study, the linear distance term of the IASPEI formula for ML is adjusted to remove a linear distance trend in residuals to give a regionally defined ML. The defined ML uses horizontal component recordings, but the same procedure is applied to the vertical components since there may be some interest in vertical component ground motions. Residual plots versus distance may indicate interesting features of ground motion scaling in some distance ranges. A residual plot of the regionalized magnitude is given as a function of distance and azimuth, since data sets may transcend different wave propagation provinces.
Left: ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Horizontal components. Center: 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.
Right: Residuals from new relation as a function of distance and azimuth.
Left: ML computed using the IASPEI formula for Vertical components (research). Center: 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.
Right: Residuals from new relation as a function of distance and azimuth.
![]() |
The focal mechanism was determined using broadband seismic waveforms. The location of the event (star) and the stations used for (red) the waveform inversion are shown in the next figure.
![]() |
|
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's 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 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.07 n 3The results of this grid search are as follow:
DEPTH STK DIP RAKE MW FIT WVFGRD96 1.0 95 50 -90 3.58 0.2010 WVFGRD96 2.0 275 40 -90 3.70 0.2585 WVFGRD96 3.0 225 55 -10 3.67 0.2595 WVFGRD96 4.0 225 50 -10 3.72 0.2763 WVFGRD96 5.0 225 45 -5 3.75 0.2976 WVFGRD96 6.0 50 45 0 3.77 0.3179 WVFGRD96 7.0 50 50 5 3.79 0.3435 WVFGRD96 8.0 45 40 -5 3.86 0.3676 WVFGRD96 9.0 50 45 10 3.87 0.3911 WVFGRD96 10.0 60 45 35 3.90 0.4135 WVFGRD96 11.0 60 50 35 3.92 0.4357 WVFGRD96 12.0 60 50 40 3.93 0.4548 WVFGRD96 13.0 60 50 40 3.94 0.4686 WVFGRD96 14.0 60 50 35 3.95 0.4785 WVFGRD96 15.0 60 50 35 3.96 0.4853 WVFGRD96 16.0 60 50 35 3.97 0.4890 WVFGRD96 17.0 60 50 35 3.98 0.4900 WVFGRD96 18.0 55 55 30 3.99 0.4895 WVFGRD96 19.0 55 55 30 3.99 0.4871 WVFGRD96 20.0 55 55 30 4.00 0.4829 WVFGRD96 21.0 55 55 25 4.01 0.4787 WVFGRD96 22.0 55 55 25 4.02 0.4724 WVFGRD96 23.0 55 55 25 4.02 0.4651 WVFGRD96 24.0 55 55 25 4.03 0.4568 WVFGRD96 25.0 55 55 25 4.03 0.4477 WVFGRD96 26.0 55 55 25 4.04 0.4378 WVFGRD96 27.0 325 70 40 4.05 0.4300 WVFGRD96 28.0 325 70 40 4.06 0.4232 WVFGRD96 29.0 325 70 40 4.07 0.4154
The best solution is
WVFGRD96 17.0 60 50 35 3.98 0.4900
The mechanism corresponding to the best fit is
![]() |
|
The best fit as a function of depth is given in the following figure:
![]() |
|
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, the velocity model used in the predictions may not be perfect and the epicentral parameters may be be off. 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 -30 o DIST/3.3 +70 rtr taper w 0.1 hp c 0.03 n 3 lp c 0.07 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. The time scale is relative to the first trace sample. |
![]() |
Focal mechanism sensitivity at the preferred depth. The red color indicates a very good fit to the waveforms. 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:
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.
The WUS.model used for the waveform synthetic seismograms and for the surface wave eigenfunctions and dispersion is as follows (The format is in the model96 format of Computer Programs in Seismology).
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