Search for: All records

Shear wave splitting is often assumed to be caused by mantle flow or preexisting lithospheric fabrics. We present 2,389 new SKS shear wave splitting observations from 384 broadband stations deployed in Alaska from January 2010 to August 2017. In Alaska, splitting appears to be controlled by the absolute plate motion (APM) of the North American and Pacific plates, the interaction between the two plates, and the geometry of the subducting Pacific‐Yakutat plate. Outside of the subduction zone's influence, the fast directions in northern Alaska parallel the North American APM direction. Fast directions near the Queen Charlotte‐Fairweather transform margin are parallel to the faults and are likely caused by the strike‐slip deformation extending throughout the lithosphere. In the mantle wedge, fast directions are oriented along the strike of the slab with large splitting times and are caused by along‐strike flow in the mantle wedge as the slab provides a barrier to flow. South of the Alaska Peninsula, the fast directions are parallel to the trench regardless of sea floor fabric, indicating along strike flow under the Pacific plate. Under the Kenai Peninsula, the complex flat slab geometry may cause subslab flow to be parallel to Pacific APM direction or to the North America‐Pacific relative motion.

 

Abstract We present two new seismic velocity models for Alaska from joint inversions of body-wave and ambient-noise-derived surface-wave data, using two different methods. Our work takes advantage of data from many recent temporary seismic networks, including the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Alaska Transportable Array, Southern Alaska Lithosphere and Mantle Observation Network, and onshore stations of the Alaska Amphibious Community Seismic Experiment. The first model primarily covers south-central Alaska and uses body-wave arrival times with Rayleigh-wave group-velocity maps accounting for their period-dependent lateral sensitivity. The second model results from direct inversion of body-wave arrival times and surface-wave phase travel times, and covers the entire state of Alaska. The two models provide 3D compressional- (VP) and shear-wave velocity (VS) information at depths ∼0–100  km. There are many similarities as well as differences between the two models. The first model provides a clear image of the high-velocity subducting plate and the low-velocity mantle wedge, in terms of the seismic velocities and the VP/VS ratio. The statewide model provides clearer images of many features such as sedimentary basins, a high-velocity anomaly in the mantle wedge under the Denali volcanic gap, low VP in the lower crust under Brooks Range, and low velocities at the eastern edge of Yakutat terrane under the Wrangell volcanic field. From simultaneously relocated earthquakes, we also find that the depth to the subducting Pacific plate beneath southern Alaska appears to be deeper than previous models. 

Abstract We measure pseudospectral and peak ground motions from 44 intermediate‐depth Mw≥4.9 earthquakes in the Cook Inlet region of southern Alaska, including those from the 2018 Mw 7.1 earthquake near Anchorage, to identify regional amplification features (0.1–5  s period). Ground‐motion residuals are computed with respect to an empirical ground‐motion model for intraslab subduction earthquakes, and we compute bias, between‐, and within‐event terms through a linear mixed‐effects regression. Between‐event residuals are analyzed to assess the relative source characteristics of the Cook Inlet earthquakes and suggest a difference in the scaling of the source with depth, relative to global observations. The within‐event residuals are analyzed to investigate regional amplification, and various spatial patterns manifest, including correlations of amplification with depth of the Cook Inlet basin and varying amplifications east and west of the center of the basin. Three earthquake clusters are analyzed separately and indicate spatial amplification patterns that depend on source location and exhibit variations in the depth scaling of long‐period basin amplification. The observations inform future seismic hazard modeling efforts in the Cook Inlet region. More broadly, they suggest a greater complexity of basin and regional amplification than is currently used in seismic hazard analyses. 

Abstract Cook Inlet fore‐arc basin in south‐central Alaska is a large, deep (7.6 km) sedimentary basin with the Anchorage metropolitan region on its margins. From 2015 to 2017, a set of 28 broadband seismic stations was deployed in the region as part of the Southern Alaska Lithosphere and Mantle Observation Network (SALMON) project. The SALMON stations, which also cover the remote western portion of Cook Inlet basin and the back‐arc region, form the basis for our observational study of the seismic response of Cook Inlet basin. We quantify the influence of Cook Inlet basin on the seismic wavefield using three data sets: (1) ambient‐noise amplitudes of 18 basin stations relative to a nonbasin reference station, (2) earthquake ground‐motion metrics for 34 crustal and intraslab earthquakes, and (3) spectral ratios (SRs) between basin stations and nonbasin stations for the same earthquakes. For all analyses, we examine how quantities vary with the frequency content of the seismic signal and with the basin depth at each station. Seismic waves from earthquakes and from ambient noise are amplified within Cook Inlet basin. At low frequencies (0.1–0.5 Hz), ambient‐noise ratios and earthquake SRs are in a general agreement with power amplification of 6–14 dB, corresponding to amplitude amplification factors of 2.0–5.0. At high frequencies (0.5–4.0 Hz), the basin amplifies the earthquake wavefield by similar factors. Our results indicate stronger amplification for the deeper basin stations such as near Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula and weaker amplification near the margins of the basin. Future work devoted to 3D wavefield simulations and treatment of source and propagation effects should improve the characterization of the frequency‐dependent response of Cook Inlet basin to recorded and scenario earthquakes in the region. 

Abstract The Mw 7.1 47 km deep earthquake that occurred on 30 November 2018 had deep societal impacts across southcentral Alaska and exhibited phenomena of broad scientific interest. We document observations that point to future directions of research and hazard mitigation. The rupture mechanism, aftershocks, and deformation of the mainshock are consistent with extension inside the Pacific plate near the down‐dip limit of flat‐slab subduction. Peak ground motions >25%g were observed across more than 8000  km2, though the most violent near‐fault shaking was avoided because the hypocenter was nearly 50 km below the surface. The ground motions show substantial variation, highlighting the influence of regional geology and near‐surface soil conditions. Aftershock activity was vigorous with roughly 300 felt events in the first six months, including two dozen aftershocks exceeding M 4.5. Broad subsidence of up to 5 cm across the region is consistent with the rupture mechanism. The passage of seismic waves and possibly the coseismic subsidence mobilized ground waters, resulting in temporary increases in stream flow. Although there were many failures of natural slopes and soils, the shaking was insufficient to reactivate many of the failures observed during the 1964 M 9.2 earthquake. This is explained by the much shorter duration of shaking as well as the lower amplitude long‐period motions in 2018. The majority of observed soil failures were in anthropogenically placed fill soils. Structural damage is attributed to both the failure of these emplaced soils as well as to the ground motion, which shows some spatial correlation to damage. However, the paucity of instrumental ground‐motion recordings outside of downtown Anchorage makes these comparisons challenging. The earthquake demonstrated the challenge of issuing tsunami warnings in complex coastal geographies and highlights the need for a targeted tsunami hazard evaluation of the region. The event also demonstrates the challenge of estimating the probabilistic hazard posed by intraslab earthquakes. 

ABSTRACT A typical seismic experiment involves installing 10–50 seismometers for 2–3 yr to record distant and local earthquakes, along with Earth’s ambient noise wavefield. The choice of the region is governed by scientific questions that may be addressed with newly recorded seismic data. In most experiments, not all stations record data for the full expected duration. Data loss may arise from defective equipment, improperly installed equipment, vandalism or theft, inadequate power sources, environmental disruptions (e.g., snow covering solar panels and causing power outage), and many other reasons. In remote regions of Alaska and northwestern Canada, bears are a particular threat to seismic stations. Here, we document three recent projects (Southern Alaska Lithosphere and Mantle Observation Network, Fault Locations and Alaska Tectonics from Seismicity, and Mackenzie Mountains EarthScope Project) in which bears were regular visitors to remote seismic stations. For these projects, there were documented bear encounters at 56 out of 88 remote stations and 6 out of 85 nonremote stations. Considering bear‐disrupted sites—such as dug‐up cables or outages—there were 29 cases at remote stations and one case at nonremote stations. We also compile bear encounters with permanent stations within the Alaska Seismic Network, as well as stations of the Alaska Transportable Array. For these two networks, the stations are designed with fiberglass huts that house and protect equipment. Data losses at these networks because of bears are minor (<5%), though evidence suggests they are regularly visited by bears, and data disruptions are exclusively at remote stations. The primary goal of this study is to formally document the impacts of bears on seismic stations in Alaska and northwestern Canada. We propose that the threat of damage from bears to a station increases with the remoteness of the site and the density of bears, and it decreases with the strength and security of materials used. We suggest that low‐power electric fences be considered for seismic stations—especially for temporary experiments—to protect the equipment and to protect the bears. With the goal of 100% data returns, future seismic experiments in remote regions of bear country should carefully consider the impacts of bears.