Magnitudes and Locations of the 1811-1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquakes

Bakun, William H.; Hopper, Margaret G.

doi:10.1785/0120020122

Cited by 131 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this might appear self-evident to anyone familiar with the gross nature of earthquake effects, some early studies have relied heavily or exclusively on secondary effects to assign intensities where no other information is available (e.g., Nuttli, 1973;Strand, 1980). Recently, some researchers have adopted the MSK approach of not assigning MMI values based on such effects (e.g., Bakun and Hopper, 2004). Although sensible in many respects, this has the unfortunate result that the MMI scale is essentially redefined "on the fly"; thus, MMI data sets from different earthquakes cannot be directly compared without a careful consideration of the approach used in each individual study.…”

Section: Comparison Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the Media Bias in Intensity Surveys: Lessons from the 2001 Bhuj, India, Earthquake

Hough

Pande

2007

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many seismologists have looked at the 26 January 2001 Bhuj earthquake as a key modern calibration event that could be used to improve estimates of magnitudes of large historic mainshocks in stable continental regions. Since no instrumental data are available for important historic events such as the 1819 Allah Bund, India, and the 1811-1812 New Madrid, central U.S. mainshocks, calibration hinges on comparisons of the macroseismic effects of these earthquakes with those of comparable modern earthquakes for which a reliable, instrumentally determined moment magnitude is available. However, although such a comparison is conceptually straightforward, in practice it is complicated by potentially significant inconsistencies in methods used to quantify macroseismic effects in different regions and/ or times. For the Bhuj earthquake, extensive intensity data sets have been compiled and published from both media accounts and detailed direct surveys. Comparing the two provides a quantification of the previously suspected media bias, whereby earthquake effects can be exaggerated in media accounts. This bias is a strong function of intensity level, with substantial bias at the highest shaking levels and significantly less bias at low intensities. Because only sparse documentary data are in general available for older historic earthquakes, the results of this study suggest that their inferred intensity distributions might be similarly biased. We further use the surveybased intensity values to develop a new relationship between intensities and ground motions.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the Media Bias in Intensity Surveys: Lessons from the 2001 Bhuj, India, Earthquake

Hough

Pande

2007

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evansville, Ind., is a current focus of urban seismic hazard mapping in the Central United States because of its proximity to the New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ), where a sequence of three earthquakes with magnitude (M) greater than 7 occurred in 1811-1812 (Johnston, 1996;Hough and others, 2000;Bakun and Hopper, 2004). Both the NMSZ and the Wabash Valley seismic zone (WVSZ) are potential source areas for triggering liquefaction in and around Evansville, Ind., and Henderson, Ky., which lie on sequences of alluvial and lacustrine sediments adjacent to the Ohio River.…”

Section: Introduction Choice Of Scenario Earthquakes For Liquefactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moment magnitudes ranging from magnitude (M) 7.4 to 8.1 have been assigned to the largest of the events based on preinstrumental intensity reports (Johnston, 1996;Hough and others, 2000;Bakun and Hopper, 2004). In southern Indiana, the reported intensities ranged from Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VI to VII (Nuttli, 1973;Street, 1984).…”

Section: Introduction Choice Of Scenario Earthquakes For Liquefactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liquefaction hazard for the region of Evansville, Indiana

Haase¹,

Choi²,

Nowack³

et al. 2011

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquake sequence included three well-documented mainshocks that have been described and analyzed in considerable detail (e.g., Mitchill 1815;Fuller 1912;Nuttli 1973;Penick 1981;Street 1982Street , 1984Johnston 1996b;Hough et al 2000;Bakun and Hopper 2004a). The three principal mainshocks occurred at approximately 02:15 local time (LT) on 16 December 1811; around 07:15 LT on 23 January 1812, and approximately 03:00 LT on 7 February 1812 (henceforth NM1, NM2, and NM3, respectively).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The so-called dawn aftershock on 16 December 1811 was also widely felt (e.g., Johnston 1996b; Hough et al 2000). The magnitude estimates of the four principal events-i.e., the three mainshocks and the dawn aftershock-have been the subject of considerable debate, with published Mw estimates ranging from ~7 to >8 (e.g., Nuttli 1973;Johnston 1996b; Hough et al 2000, Bakun andHopper 2004a).Each of the three mainshocks was followed by an energetic aftershock sequence. The aftershocks are not included in the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) catalog of historical central/eastern U.S. earthquakes (Armbruster and Seeber 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cataloging the 1811-1812 New Madrid, Central U.S., Earthquake Sequence

Hough

2009

Seismological Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The three principal New Madrid, central U.S., mainshocks of 1811-1812 were followed by extensive aftershock sequences that included numerous felt events. Although no instrumental data are available for the sequence, historical accounts provide information that can be used to estimate magnitudes and locations for the large aftershocks as well as the mainshocks. Several detailed eyewitness accounts of the sequence provide sufficient information to identify times and rough magnitude estimates for a number of aftershocks that have not been analyzed previously. I also use three extended compilations of felt events to explore the overall sequence productivity. Although one generally cannot estimate magnitudes or locations for individual events, the intensity distributions of recent, instrumentally recorded earthquakes in the region provide a basis for estimation of the magnitude distribution of 1811-1812 aftershocks. The distribution is consistent with a b-value distribution. I estimate Mw 6-6.3 for the three largest identifiable aftershocks, apart from the so-called dawn aftershock on 16 December 1811. INTRODUCTIONThe 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquake sequence included three well-documented mainshocks that have been described and analyzed in considerable detail (e.g., Mitchill 1815;Fuller 1912;Nuttli 1973;Penick 1981;Street 1982Street , 1984Johnston 1996b;Hough et al. 2000;Bakun and Hopper 2004a). The three principal mainshocks occurred at approximately 02:15 local time (LT) on 16 December 1811; around 07:15 LT on 23 January 1812, and approximately 03:00 LT on 7 February 1812 (henceforth NM1, NM2, and NM3, respectively). The so-called dawn aftershock on 16 December 1811 was also widely felt (e.g., Johnston 1996b; Hough et al. 2000). The magnitude estimates of the four principal events-i.e., the three mainshocks and the dawn aftershock-have been the subject of considerable debate, with published Mw estimates ranging from ~7 to >8 (e.g., Nuttli 1973;Johnston 1996b; Hough et al. 2000, Bakun andHopper 2004a).Each of the three mainshocks was followed by an energetic aftershock sequence. The aftershocks are not included in the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) catalog of historical central/eastern U.S. earthquakes (Armbruster and Seeber 1992). Nor are aftershocks included in a more recent study (Bakun and Hopper 2004b), which presents locations and magnitudes for moderate historical earthquakes in the eastern/central U.S. but does not include any events prior to 1827.A number of eyewitness accounts from the New Madrid region document the unrest without providing much if any detail about individual events. Two eyewitnesses, Daniel Drake in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Jared Brooks in Louisville, Kentucky, kept detailed records of felt events, in both cases ranked by perceived relative severity of shaking. Drake's accounts were included as an appendix to a book published in 1815 (Drake 1815); Brooks's accounts were published posthumously (McMurtrie 1819). An additional account from the settlement of...

show abstract

Magnitudes and Locations of the 1811-1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquakes

Cited by 131 publications

References 29 publications

Quantifying the Media Bias in Intensity Surveys: Lessons from the 2001 Bhuj, India, Earthquake

Quantifying the Media Bias in Intensity Surveys: Lessons from the 2001 Bhuj, India, Earthquake

Liquefaction hazard for the region of Evansville, Indiana

Cataloging the 1811-1812 New Madrid, Central U.S., Earthquake Sequence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About