The 9 December 2003 Central Virginia Earthquake Sequence: A Compound Earthquake in the Central Virginia Seismic Zone

Kim, W.-Y.

doi:10.1785/0120040207

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The U.S. Geological Survey or St. Louis University moment tensor solution (Herrmann, 2011) indicates moment magnitude M w 5.65, and a nodal plane with strike N28°E, dip 50°to the southeast, and rake 113°, in agreement with aftershock locations (Herrmann, 2011;Chapman, 2013;McNamara et al, 2014;Horton, Shah, et al, 2015). This reverse-fault earthquake occurred in an area known as the central Virginia seismic zone (CVSZ), which has a long history of moderate earthquake activity (Taber, 1913;Bollinger, 1969Bollinger, , 1973aKim and Chapman, 2005;Chapman, 2013Horton, Chapman, et al, 2015, and references therein). The earliest earthquake reported in the CVSZ occurred on 21 February 1774.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

The Aftershock Sequence of the 2011 Mineral, Virginia, Earthquake: Temporal and Spatial Distribution, Focal Mechanisms, Regional Stress, and the Role of Coulomb Stress Transfer

Wu¹,

Chapman²,

Beale³

2015

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aftershocks of the 23 August 2011 M w 5.7 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake were recorded by 36 temporary stations installed by several institutions. We located 3960 aftershocks from 25 August 2011 through 31 December 2011. A subset of 1666 aftershocks resolves details of the hypocenter distribution. We determined 393 focal mechanism solutions. Aftershocks near the mainshock define a previously recognized tabular cluster with orientation similar to a mainshock nodal plane; other aftershocks occurred 10-20 km to the northeast. A large percentage of the aftershocks occurred in regions of positive Coulomb static stress change, and ∼80% of the focal mechanism nodal planes were brought closer to failure. However, the aftershock distribution near the mainshock appears to have been influenced strongly by rupture directivity. Aftershocks at depths less than 4 km exhibit reverse mechanisms with north-northwest-trending nodal planes. Most focal mechanisms at depths greater than 6 km are similar to the mainshock, with north-northeast-trending nodal planes. A concentration of aftershocks in the 4-6 km depth range near the mainshock are mostly of reverse type but display a 90°range of nodal-plane trend. Those events appear to outline the periphery of mainshock rupture, where positive Coulomb stress transfer is largest. The focal mechanisms of aftershocks at depths less than 4 km and those greater than 6 km, along with the mainshock, point to the possibility of a depthdependent stress field prior to the occurrence of the mainshock.Analysis of earthquake occurrence using a new magnitude scale (M D ) indicates a Gutenberg-Richer law b-value of 0.864 and an Omori law p-value of 1.085, indicative of a typical aftershock sequence.Online Material: Catalogs of aftershock location, magnitude, and focal mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

The Aftershock Sequence of the 2011 Mineral, Virginia, Earthquake: Temporal and Spatial Distribution, Focal Mechanisms, Regional Stress, and the Role of Coulomb Stress Transfer

Wu¹,

Chapman²,

Beale³

2015

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although central and eastern North America constitute an intraplate setting, several large earthquakes have occurred there over the past three centuries (Bent, 1995(Bent, , 1996Du et al, 2003;Ebel, 2009;Horner et al, 1978;Horton et al, 2005;Hough & Page, 2011;Kim, 2003;Kim & Chapman, 2005;Kim et al, 2006;Ma et al, 2008;Neely et al, 2018;Sbar et al, 1975;Yang & Aggarwal, 1981). Most notable are the New Madrid earthquakes and their aftershocks that shook the Midwest between 1811 and 1812 and the 1886 Charleston earthquake in South Carolina.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Large‐Scale Tectonic Forces in Intraplate Earthquakes of Central and Eastern North America

Ghosh

Holt

Bahadori

2019

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central and eastern United States (CEUS) have experienced large intraplate earthquakes. Yet, at present there is no comprehensive model to explain stresses, strain, and seismicity in this intraplate setting. Models to explain the intraplate stresses in CEUS include glacio‐isostatic adjustment, ridge push effects, local stresses along preexisting fracture zones, and large‐scale convection. In this paper, we present a self‐consistent model of the dynamics of CEUS that explains the stress field responsible for these intraplate earthquakes. The earthquakes represent slow, ongoing deformation associated with forces arising from a combination of lithosphere topography and structure, together with the effects of density‐driven mantle flow. Using GPS data, we calculate strain rates that are likely to arise from tectonic effects and conclude that intraplate strain rates associated with tectonic effects are unlikely to exceed 1 × 10−9 year−1. We test several models of lateral viscosity variations by comparing model stress orientation output with earthquake moment tensors, SHmax directions from stress inversion, and P axes of earthquakes. A model that satisfies stress and earthquake constraints and also strain rate magnitude constraints requires high viscosity (1025 Pa·s) craton and old oceanic lithosphere of the western Atlantic block and weaker (5 × 1024 Pa·s) accreted Appalachian terrane. Other strength contrasts within the lithosphere are likely present. Incorporation of these into future models using constraints from seismology, along with refined geodetic measurements and improved estimates of crust and upper mantle densities, is needed to further refine long‐term dynamic models and better evaluate the hazards associated with this very slow, ongoing permanent deformation within the eastern and central United States.

show abstract

“…The SE‐dipping reverse mechanism is also generally consistent with ENE oriented regional compression [ Zoback , ]. The continental margin parallel structures of the Virginia Piedmont and the CVSZ are thought to harbor favorably oriented relict faults from previous continental collision and breakup [ Kim and Chapman , ; Wolin et al ., ]. To help evaluate the hazard posed by the CVSZ and other passive continental margin structures, we investigate the rupture history of the Mineral earthquake and its stress drop distribution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rupture model of the 2011 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake from teleseismic and regional waveforms

Hartzell

Mendoza

Zeng

2013

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] We independently invert teleseismic P waveforms and regional crustal phases to examine the finite fault slip model for the 2011 M w 5.8 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake. Theoretical and empirical Green's functions are used for the teleseismic and regional models, respectively. Both solutions show two distinct sources each about 2 km across and separated by 2.5 km. The source at the hypocenter is more localized in the regional model leading to a higher peak slip of 130 cm and higher average stress drop of 250 bars compared with 86 cm and 150 bars for the same source in the teleseismic model. Both sources are centered at approximately 8 km depth in the regional model, largely below the aftershock distribution. In the teleseismic model, the sources extend updip to approximately 6 km depth, into the depth range of the aftershocks. The rupture velocity is not well resolved but appears to be near 2.7 km/s.

show abstract

The 9 December 2003 Central Virginia Earthquake Sequence: A Compound Earthquake in the Central Virginia Seismic Zone

Cited by 27 publications

References 59 publications

The Aftershock Sequence of the 2011 Mineral, Virginia, Earthquake: Temporal and Spatial Distribution, Focal Mechanisms, Regional Stress, and the Role of Coulomb Stress Transfer

The Aftershock Sequence of the 2011 Mineral, Virginia, Earthquake: Temporal and Spatial Distribution, Focal Mechanisms, Regional Stress, and the Role of Coulomb Stress Transfer

Role of Large‐Scale Tectonic Forces in Intraplate Earthquakes of Central and Eastern North America

Rupture model of the 2011 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake from teleseismic and regional waveforms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About