2016
DOI: 10.1785/0120150221
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modern Seismicity and the Fault Responsible for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquake

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
35
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
6
35
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite its passive margin setting, the SEUS has been the site of several moderate to large earthquakes over the past two centuries. The two most notable within our study area were the M = 7 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake (e.g., Tarr et al, 1981;Talwani, 1982;Cramer and Boyd, 2014;Chapman et al, 2016) and the Mw = 5.8 2011, Virginia event (e.g., Wolin et al, 2012;McNamara et al, 2014) (Fig. 1).…”
Section: Significant Earthquakes and Variable Seismicity Patternsmentioning
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite its passive margin setting, the SEUS has been the site of several moderate to large earthquakes over the past two centuries. The two most notable within our study area were the M = 7 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake (e.g., Tarr et al, 1981;Talwani, 1982;Cramer and Boyd, 2014;Chapman et al, 2016) and the Mw = 5.8 2011, Virginia event (e.g., Wolin et al, 2012;McNamara et al, 2014) (Fig. 1).…”
Section: Significant Earthquakes and Variable Seismicity Patternsmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…These large earthquakes are associated with localized regions of increased seismic activity. Seismicity in the immediate vicinity of the Charleston, South Carolina, event may represent a lingering aftershock sequence, given the locations and focal mechanisms of these events (Chapman et al, 2016). The Virginia earthquake occurred in an area that had previously been identified as a region of moderately increased seismicity known as the Central Virginia Seismic Zone (CVSZ) (e.g., Bollinger, 1973;Çoruh et al, 1988;Kim and Chapman, 2005).…”
Section: Significant Earthquakes and Variable Seismicity Patternsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Modern seismicity is in the upper crust (0-13 km) in what has been interpreted as a relatively thick (∼4 km), west-dipping tabular zone (Chapman et al, 2016). An upper crustal epicenter in 1886 is indicated by the depths of the modern seismicity and by small foreshocks that sounded like cannon shots in Summerville but were not felt in Charleston (Dutton, 1889, p. 231;Durá-Gómez and Talwani, 2009).…”
Section: The 1886 Earthquake and Modern Seismicitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, unexpected seismic events took place also in intraplate areas previously considered inactive. Such were the three earthquakes in New Madrid (1811-1812) (December 16, 1811 M W 7.2-7.3; January 23, 1812 M W 7.0; February 7, 1812 M W 7.4-7.5) (Hough et al, 2000) or the Charleston earthquake that occurred August 31st, 1886, with estimated magnitude M W 6.9-7.3 (Chapman et al, 2016). The two events which hit Kaliningrad (enclave of Russia) on the considered inactive Russian plate during September 21, 2004 (M W 5.0 and 5.2) were also unexpected (Rogozhin, 2011).…”
Section: Earthquakes In Areas Allegedly Inactivementioning
confidence: 99%