Large 19th Century Earthquakes in Eastern/Central North America: A Comparative Analysis

Hough, Susan E.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8222-1_17

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Paleoseismic records for the New Madrid area reveal a recurrence interval of 400-500 years for earthquakes of comparable magnitude to the 1811-1812 events in the past 2400 years [Kelson et al, 1996]. While these events are among the largest recorded in the United States [Hough, 2008], the factors responsible for their occurrence and location remain poorly understood. The degree of measurable crustal deformation, and its implications for future seismic hazard remain a subject of considerable controversy [Calais et al, 2005;Smalley et al, 2005;Calais and Stein, 2009].…”

Section: Intraplate Seismic Zones In the Central United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An outstanding question of continental tectonics in general, and within the U.S. midcontinent in particular, is what factors control the occurrence and distribution of intraplate deformation [e.g., Sykes, 1978;Kusznir and Park, 1984;Talwani, 1988Talwani, , 1999Liu and Zoback, 1997;Schulte and Mooney, 2005;Mooney et al, 2012]. The New Madrid region has been characterized by a long sequence of seismicity during the Holocene [Schweig and Ellis, 1994], with the 1811-1812 sequence of events being among the largest earthquakes recorded in the United States [Hough, 2008]. However, the origin of the stress released by this seismicity is an ongoing debate, and why it has been localized in New Madrid is still not well understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shear velocity structure beneath the central United States: implications for the origin of the Illinois Basin and intraplate seismicity

Chen

Gilbert

Andronicos

et al. 2016

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present new estimates of lithospheric shear velocities for the intraplate seismic zones and the Illinois Basin in the U.S. midcontinent by analyzing teleseismic Rayleigh waves. We find that relatively high crustal shear velocities (VS) characterize the southern Illinois Basin, while relatively low crustal velocities characterize the middle and lower crust of the central and northern Illinois Basin. The observed high crustal velocities may correspond to high‐density mafic intrusions emplaced into the crust during the development of the Reelfoot Rift, which may have contributed to the subsidence of the Illinois Basin. The low crustal VS beneath the central and northern basin follow the La Salle deformation belt. We also observe relatively low velocities in the mantle beneath the New Madrid seismic zone where VS decreases by about 7% compared to those outside of the rift. The low VS in the upper mantle also extends beneath the Wabash Valley and Ste. Genevieve seismic zones. Testing expected VS reductions based on plausible thermal heterogeneities for the midcontinent indicates that the 7% velocity reduction would not result from elevated temperatures alone. Instead this scale of anomaly requires a contribution from some combination of increased iron and water content. Both rifting and interaction with a mantle plume could introduce these compositional heterogeneities. Similar orientations for the NE‐SW low‐velocity zone and the Reelfoot Rift suggest a rift origin to the reduced velocities. The low VS upper mantle represents a weak region and the intraplate seismic zones would correspond to concentrated crustal deformation above weak mantle.

show abstract

Section: Intraplate Seismic Zones In the Central United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear velocity structure beneath the central United States: implications for the origin of the Illinois Basin and intraplate seismicity

Chen

Gilbert

Andronicos

et al. 2016

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two largest values in the histogram correspond to preinstrumental earthquakes with magnitudes inferred from historical accounts: one earthquake in eastern China in 1668 (M w 7.9) and the largest 1812 New Madrid earthquake (M w 7.8). It should be noted that the SCR status of the domain containing the earthquake in eastern China may be questioned when compared with more detailed plate-boundary models (e.g., Bird, 2003), and the magnitude of the largest New Madrid earthquake is being revised downward (Hough, 2008;Hough and Page, 2011). However, because reassessment of the SCR earthquake catalog compiled in NUREG-2115 is beyond the scope of this article, we use this information as is for consistency with the earlier work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

CouldM_maxBe the Same for All Stable Continental Regions?

Vanneste¹,

Vleminckx²,

Stein³

et al. 2016

Seismological Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In probabilistic seismic-hazard assessment for stable continental regions (SCRs), the maximum magnitude M max truncating the earthquake magnitude-frequency distribution is commonly based on Bayesian updating of a global prior distribution derived from the distribution of observed M max in superdomains (groups of tectonically similar domains). We use randomly simulated earthquake catalogs to test if this observed superdomain M max distribution could also be explained by a global uniform M max value in SCRs, given our limited periods of observation. Using published average recurrence parameters per continent, catalog completeness thresholds for different regions within each continent, and assuming a Poisson temporal occurrence model, we simulate 10,000 random catalogs for each SCR domain, combine them into superdomain catalogs, and determine the largest sampled magnitude and the number of sampled earthquakes in each. Imposing an M max of 7.9, the largest magnitude observed in SCRs to date, and catalog lengths similar to those presently available, we obtain superdomain M max distributions similar to that observed. Hence, we cannot presently distinguish whether M max in SCRs is spatially variable or uniform. As a result, using a single value of M max in seismichazard analyses for all SCRs might make sense. Simulations with larger M max and longer catalogs confirm that catalog length is the limiting factor in our knowledge of M max. Online Material: Table of data available for the 255 stable continental region domains.

show abstract

“…The earthquake was felt as far away as New York and Montreal (http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/histor/20th‐eme/1929/1929‐eng.php) and thus gives a useful comparison with the similar intensity distribution for the largest of the 1811‐12 New Madrid earthquake sequence [ Hough , 2008]. Other notable events include the 1933 M 7.3 Baffin Bay [ Bent , 2002], 1755 M ∼6 Cape Ann, Massachusetts [ Ebel , 2006], and 1886 M ∼7 Charleston [ Hough , 2008] earthquakes. Hence the 2011 Virginia earthquake is part of a diffuse seismic zone spanning the continental margin (Figure 2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mineral, Virginia, earthquake illustrates seismicity of a passive‐aggressive margin

Wolin

Stein

Pazzaglia

et al. 2012

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The August 2011 M 5.8 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake that shook much of the northeastern U.S. dramatically demonstrated that passive continental margins sometimes have large earthquakes. We illustrate some general aspects of such earthquakes and outline some of the many unresolved questions about them. They occur both offshore and onshore, reaching magnitude 7, and are thought to reflect reactivation of favorably‐oriented, generally margin‐parallel, faults created during one or more Wilson cycles by the modern stress field. They pose both tsunami and shaking hazards. However, their specific geologic setting and causes are unclear because large magnitude events occur infrequently, microseismicity is not well recorded, and there is little, if any, surface expression of repeated ruptures. Thus presently active seismic zones may be areas associated with higher seismicity over the long term, the present loci of activity that migrates, or aftershock zones of large prehistoric earthquakes. The stresses causing the earthquakes may result from platewide driving forces, glacial isostatic adjustment, localized margin stresses, and/or dynamic topography. The resulting uncertainties make developing cost‐effective mitigation strategies a major challenge. Progress on these issues requires integrating seismic, geodetic, and geological techniques.

show abstract

Large 19th Century Earthquakes in Eastern/Central North America: A Comparative Analysis

Cited by 6 publications

References 20 publications

Shear velocity structure beneath the central United States: implications for the origin of the Illinois Basin and intraplate seismicity

Shear velocity structure beneath the central United States: implications for the origin of the Illinois Basin and intraplate seismicity

CouldM_maxBe the Same for All Stable Continental Regions?

Mineral, Virginia, earthquake illustrates seismicity of a passive‐aggressive margin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Large 19th Century Earthquakes in Eastern/Central North America: A Comparative Analysis

Cited by 6 publications

References 20 publications

Shear velocity structure beneath the central United States: implications for the origin of the Illinois Basin and intraplate seismicity

Shear velocity structure beneath the central United States: implications for the origin of the Illinois Basin and intraplate seismicity

CouldMmaxBe the Same for All Stable Continental Regions?

Mineral, Virginia, earthquake illustrates seismicity of a passive‐aggressive margin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

CouldM_maxBe the Same for All Stable Continental Regions?