The Charleston, Missouri Earthquake of October 31, 1895

Street, R.; Couch, Dylan; Konkler, J.

doi:10.1785/gssrl.57.2.41

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These estimates derive in part from the isoseismal maps shown in Fig. 6 and in part from other maps (Nuttli 1974;Street, Couch & Konkler 1986Stover & Coffman 1993. The east-west isoseismal asymmetry apparent in Fig.…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…l(a), and 1895 Charleston, Missouri, near the northern end. [No instrumental records are known for the 1895 event (Street, Couch & Konkler 1986;Abe 1994;Abe, personal communication 1995).] Regression analysis similar to that described below for New Madrid yields M = 6.3 0.29 for Marked Tree and M = 6.6 0.29 for Charleston, Missouri (Table 4b).…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions-III. New Madrid 1811-1812, Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755

Johnston

1996

Geophysical Journal International

380

256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY The sizes of three major or great historical earthquakes are reassessed using the isoseismal‐area‐regression tools developed in Parts I and II of this study of stable continental region (SCR) seismicity. The earthquakes are 1811 New Madrid, central United States, and its following sequence; 1886 Charleston, coastal South Carolina; and 1755 Lisbon, oceanic intraplate off the continental shelf of Portugal. The analysis confirms the large size of these events and for the first time places constraints on the uncertainty of their seismic moment release. Because of the exceptionally low seismic‐wave attenuation of eastern North America (ENA), a separate North American regression of seismic moment on isoseismal area was developed. Additionally, the unknown western extents of the New Madrid isoseismal areas were calibrated with the patterns of the M 6.3‐6.6 1843 and 1895 earthquakes. Application of Part II analysis procedures with these corrections yields New Madrid size estimates, expressed as moment magnitude, of M 8.1±0.31 for the 1811 December 16, M 7.8±0.33 for the 1812 January 23, and M 8.0±0.33 for the 1812 February 7 principal events. The Charleston earthquake's magnitude decreases from M≳7.4 to M 7.3±0.26 after compensation for the effect of coastal plain sediments on its inner isoseismals. Intensity regressions for Lisbon are calibrated against the isoseismal pattern of the nearly co‐located M 7.8 1969 St Vincent earthquake, which in this case increases the predicted size of Lisbon from M 8.4 to M 8.7±0.39. These size estimates are supported by data from independent phenomena: extent and severity of liquefaction, the maximum distance of induced landslides, and for Lisbon, tsunami wave amplitudes. Estimated source parameters are controlled by crustal or lithospheric temperature, which governs the depth extent of brittle faulting. Using estimated continental and oceanic geotherms, viable fault lengths are 30–80 km for Charleston, 120–180 km for 1811 New Madrid, and 180–280 km for Lisbon for average displacements of 2–4 m, 8–11 m, and 10–14 m, respectively, and for average static stress and strain drops. At the estimated seismic moments of this study, the 1811 New Madrid and the 1755 Lisbon events are, respectively, the largest known SCR and oceanic lithosphere earthquakes.

show abstract

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions-III. New Madrid 1811-1812, Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755

Johnston

1996

Geophysical Journal International

380

256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reports ofliquefaction features are primarily to the southwest and southeast of Charleston (Street et al, 1986;Hopper, 2004). Obermeier et ale (1993) stated that Cairo, Illinois (located about 20 km northeast of Charleston, Missouri) and other towns located along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers did not report liquefaction features.…”

Section: October 1895 Charleston Missourimentioning

confidence: 99%

Revised Magnitude-bound Relation for the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone of the Central United States

Olson¹,

Green²,

Obermeier³

2005

Seismological Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic hazard assessment in the central United States, and in particular the Wabash Valley seismic zone of Indiana-Illinois, frequently relies on empirical estimates of paleoearthquake magnitudes (M). In large part these estimates have been made using the magnitude-bound method. Existing region-specific magnitude-bound relations rely heavily on only a few historical earthquakes in the central United States and eastern Canada that induced reported liquefaction features. Recent seismological studies have suggested smaller magnitudes than previously presumed for some of these earthquakes, however, and other studies have reinterpreted site-to-source distances to liquefaction features associated with some of these earthquakes. In this paper, we re-examine historical earthquakes (M > "-J 5) that occurred in the central and eastern United States and eastern Canada; some of these earthquakes triggered liquefaction and others did not. Based on our findings, we reinterpret the regionspecificmagnitude-bound relation for the Wabash Valley. Using this revised magnitude-bound relation, we present magnitude estimates for four prehistoric earthquakes that occurred in the Wabash Valleyseismic zone during Holocene time.

show abstract

“…Three large ( M > 7) earthquakes occurred in the NMSZ in the winter of 1811–1812 (Bakun and Hopper, 2004; Johnston and Schweig, 1996). There was also a M6.0 earthquake near Charleston, Missouri in 1895 (Street et al, 1986). Paleoseismic research (Tuttle et al, 2002) has identified the NMSZ as the site of at least three major paleoseismic events in the last millennium, and it is also the site of continued, relatively high-level crustal seismicity (Page and Hough, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of scenario earthquakes for seismic hazard assessment in low-seismicity, stable continental regions: A case study from Indiana, USA

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While large earthquakes have been documented in stable continental regions, such as the central United States, they occur too infrequently to provide reliable observations of earthquake-related impacts. Using the state of Indiana as a case study, we investigate the impacts of five deterministic scenarios—three occurring outside the borders of the state and two within the state. They include a M7.3 Wabash Valley event in southern Illinois, a M7.6 New Madrid event in southeastern Missouri, a M6.2 event in west central Ohio, a M6.2 event near Evansville, Indiana, and a M5.8 Indianapolis event. The locations and magnitudes are based on known fault locations and credible interpretations of the earthquake history in the region. We use a combination of the US Geological Survey’s ShakeMap and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazus software packages to assess earthquake-triggered ground shaking and its effects on the built environment. We also use the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Failure estimation tool to examine the spatial distribution of anticipated earthquake-induced landslides and liquefaction. The five main deterministic scenario models indicate that moderate-sized urban earthquakes may represent a greater threat to a state like Indiana than a large-magnitude event from the New Madrid seismic zone. To better understand the influence of earthquake source parameters on impacts, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for earthquakes near Indianapolis and Evansville, where we reviewed losses due to differences in magnitude, depth, strike, and dip. Based on the model projections, magnitude and depth have first-order and relatively predictable influence on losses. The orientation and dip of the causative fault in relation to populated areas can alter economic losses for an event of the same magnitude by 13%–32%. Deterministic scenario analyses, such as those presented here, can potentially be of widespread utility for understanding earthquake impacts in the central United States and other low-seismicity, stable continental regions.

show abstract

The Charleston, Missouri Earthquake of October 31, 1895

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions-III. New Madrid 1811-1812, Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755

Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions-III. New Madrid 1811-1812, Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755

Revised Magnitude-bound Relation for the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone of the Central United States

Use of scenario earthquakes for seismic hazard assessment in low-seismicity, stable continental regions: A case study from Indiana, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About