Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70024133

Magnitude estimates of two large aftershocks of the 16 December 1811 New Madrid earthquake

Abstract

The three principal New Madrid mainshocks of 1811-1812 were followed by extensive aftershock sequences that included numerous felt events. Although no instrumental data are available for either the mainshocks or the aftershocks, available historical accounts do provide information that can be used to estimate magnitudes and locations for the large events. In this article we investigate two of the largest aftershocks: one near dawn following the first mainshock on 16 December 1811, and one near midday on 17 December 1811. We reinterpret original felt reports to obtain a set of 48 and 20 modified Mercalli intensity values of the two aftershocks, respectively. For the dawn aftershock, we infer a Mw of approximately 7.0 based on a comparison of its intensities with those of the smallest New Madrid mainshock. Based on a detailed account that appears to describe near-field ground motions, we further propose a new fault rupture scenario for the dawn aftershock. We suggest that the aftershock had a thrust mechanism and occurred on a southeastern limb of the Reelfoot fault. For the 17 December 1811 aftershock, we infer a M W of approximately 6.1 ± 0.2 . This value is determined using the method of Bakun et al. (2002), which is based on a new calibration of intensity versus distance for earthquakes in central and eastern North America. The location of this event is not well constrained, but the available accounts suggest an epicenter beyond the southern end of the New Madrid Seismic Zone.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.53222622770337° to 37.33522435930639° latitude; -90° to -88.9013671875° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S. E. Hough, S. Martin. 2002. Magnitude estimates of two large aftershocks of the 16 December 1811 New Madrid earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010226

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

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↗

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↗