Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70014760

The northeastern Ohio earthquake of 31 January 1986: Was it induced?

C. Nicholson·E. Roeloffs·R. L. Wesson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

On 31 January 1986, at 11:46 EST, an earthquake of mb = 5.0 occurred about 40 km east of Cleveland, Ohio, and about 17 km south of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. The earthquake was felt over a broad area, including 11 states, the District of Columbia, and parts of Ontario, Canada, caused intensity VI-VII at distances of 15 km, and generated relatively high accelerations (0.18 g) of short duration at the Perry plant. Thirteen aftershocks were detected as of 15 April, with six occurring within the first 8 days. Two of the aftershocks were felt. Magnitudes for the aftershocks ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5. Focal depths for all of the earthquakes ranged from 2 to 6 km. Except for one small earthquake, all of the aftershocks occurred in a very tight cluster with a north-northeast orientation. Focal mechanisms of the aftershocks exhibit predominantly oblique right-slip motion on nearly vertical nodal planes oriented N15° to 45°E, with a nearly horizontal P axis north of east.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaArticle
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 40.99235950994091° to 41.988098644388344° latitude; -82.61150833824179° to -80.86468216636675° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C. Nicholson, E. Roeloffs, R. L. Wesson. 1988. The northeastern Ohio earthquake of 31 January 1986: Was it induced?. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0780010188

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗
USGS2026

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗