Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised)

Stover, C.W.; Coffman, J.L.

doi:10.3133/pp1527

Cited by 253 publications

(194 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Modified Mercalli scale is given as originally abridged by Wood and Neumann (1931) in table 1; the unabridged scale is reproduced in Stover and Coffman (1993). Below we list the criteria, including criteria amended to or modified from the original scale, that were used most commonly in assigning intensities for the Northridge earthquake.…”

Section: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Of 1931 and Its Applicatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assigning of MM intensity values therefore involves use of the original criteria of Wood and Neumann (1931) with amendments and modifications that have been developed in the decades since 1931. In assigning intensities to the Northridge earthquake, we follow amendments and modifications that are summarized by Stover and Coffman (1993) and that have been used by the USGS to assign intensities in recent years. For post-1931 construction types, we follow precedent set in USGS intensity surveys of recent years.…”

Section: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Of 1931 and Its Applicatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intensity IV was assigned on the basis of the following effects: felt by many to all; trees and bushes shaken slightly; buildings shaken moderately to strongly; walls creaked loudly; observer described the shaking as "strong" (Stover and Coffman, 1993).…”

Section: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Of 1931 and Its Applicatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Intensity distribution and isoseismal maps for the Northridge, California, earthquake of January 17, 1994

Dewey¹,

Reagor²,

Dengler³

et al. 1995

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Of 1931 and Its Applicatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Of 1931 and Its Applicatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intensity distribution and isoseismal maps for the Northridge, California, earthquake of January 17, 1994

Dewey¹,

Reagor²,

Dengler³

et al. 1995

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Though there are some variations, b-values from different studies average around 1 in California for both the instrumental and historical records (Felzer, 2008;Wang et al, 2009;Hutton et al, 2010). We compare the results with historical earthquakes (Stover and Coffman, 1993;National Geophysical Data Center [NGDC], 2016) within 20 km of the fault trace (wider than the 10 km we use for the recent instrumental data to allow for larger location errors in the historical catalog), as shown in Figure 4. For this figure, we plot the frequency of M w ≥ 7 since 1800, M w ≥ 5:5 since 1850, and M w ≥ 4:5 since 1950, which corresponds to the magnitude of completion in these different time periods.…”

Section: San Andreas Fault Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of Mmax from Background Seismicity and Moment Conservation

Stevens

Avouac

2017

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a simple method to determine the probability distribution function of the magnitude M max and return period T R of the maximum plausible earthquake on crustal faults. The method requires the background seismicity rate (estimated from instrumental data) and the rate of interseismic moment buildup. The method assumes that the moment released by the seismic slip is in balance with the moment deficit accumulated in between earthquakes. It also assumes that the seismicity obeys the Gutenberg-Richter (GR) law up to M max . We took into account the aftershocks of large infrequent events that were not represented in the instrumental record, so that we could estimate the average seismicity rate over the entire fault history. We extrapolated the instrumental record, using the GR law to model the frequency of larger events and their aftershocks. This increased the frequencies of smaller events on average; when these smaller events were newly extrapolated, they predicted a higher frequency of larger events. We iterated this process until stability was reached, and then we assumed moment balance when we found the maximum magnitude; we have found this method to be appropriate in applications involving examples of fault with good historical catalogs. We then showed examples of applications to faults with no historical catalogs. We present results from nine cases. For the San Andreas fault system, we find

show abstract

“…An oft-cited conclusion by Toppozada et al (1981) is that the earthquake stopped clocks and awakened people as far south as San Diego, as far north as Red Bluff, and as far east as Elko, Nevada. According to traditional intensity scales (e.g., Stover and Coffman, 1993), these two effects indicate intensity V. Accounts from these three anchor points, and similar accounts from many other locations at closer distances, suggest that modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) V shaking extended over much of California (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Macroseismic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the 1872 Owens Valley, California, Earthquake

Hough

Hutton

2008

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 26 March 1872 Owens Valley earthquake is among the largest historical earthquakes in California. The felt area and maximum fault displacements have long been regarded as comparable to, if not greater than, those of the great San Andreas fault earthquakes of 1857 and 1906, but mapped surface ruptures of the latter two events were 2-3 times longer than that inferred for the 1872 rupture. The preferred magnitude estimate of the Owens Valley earthquake has thus been 7.4, based largely on the geological evidence. Reinterpreting macroseismic accounts of the Owens Valley earthquake, we infer generally lower intensity values than those estimated in earlier studies. Nonetheless, as recognized in the early twentieth century, the effects of this earthquake were still generally more dramatic at regional distances than the macroseismic effects from the 1906 earthquake, with light damage to masonry buildings at (nearest-fault) distances as large as 400 km. Macroseismic observations thus suggest a magnitude greater than that of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which appears to be at odds with geological observations. However, while the mapped rupture length of the Owens Valley earthquake is relatively low, the average slip was high. The surface rupture was also complex and extended over multiple fault segments. It was first mapped in detail over a century after the earthquake occurred, and recent evidence suggests it might have been longer than earlier studies indicated. Our preferred magnitude estimate is M w 7.8-7.9, values that we show are consistent with the geological observations. The results of our study suggest that either the Owens Valley earthquake was larger than the 1906 San Francisco earthquake or that, by virtue of source properties and/or propagation effects, it produced systematically higher ground motions at regional distances. The latter possibility implies that some large earthquakes in California will generate significantly larger ground motions than San Andreas fault events of comparable magnitude.

show abstract

Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised)

Cited by 253 publications

References 9 publications

Intensity distribution and isoseismal maps for the Northridge, California, earthquake of January 17, 1994

Intensity distribution and isoseismal maps for the Northridge, California, earthquake of January 17, 1994

Determination of Mmax from Background Seismicity and Moment Conservation

Revisiting the 1872 Owens Valley, California, Earthquake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About