The earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone

Martitia P. Tuttle; Eugene S. Schweig; John D. Sims; Robert H. Lafferty; Lorraine W. Wolf; Marion L. Haynes

doi:10.1785/0120010227

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70024397

The earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone

Martitia P. Tuttle·Eugene S. Schweig·John D. Sims·Robert H. Lafferty·Lorraine W. Wolf·Marion L. Haynes

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The fault system responsible for New Madrid seismicity has generated temporally clustered very large earthquakes in A.D. 900 ± 100 years and A.D. 1450 ± 150 years as well as in 1811–1812. Given the uncertainties in dating liquefaction features, the time between the past three New Madrid events may be as short as 200 years and as long as 800 years, with an average of 500 years. This advance in understanding the Late Holocene history of the New Madrid seismic zone and thus, the contemporary tectonic behavior of the associated fault system was made through studies of hundreds of earthquake-induced liquefaction features at more than 250 sites across the New Madrid region. We have found evidence that prehistoric sand blows, like those that formed during the 1811–1812 earthquakes, are probably compound structures resulting from multiple earthquakes closely clustered in time or earthquake sequences. From the spatial distribution and size of sand blows and their sedimentary units, we infer the source zones and estimate the magnitudes of earthquakes within each sequence and thereby characterize the detailed behavior of the fault system. It appears that fault rupture was complex and that the central branch of the seismic zone produced very large earthquakes during the A.D. 900 and A.D. 1450 events as well as in 1811–1812. On the basis of a minimum recurrence rate of 200 years, we are now entering the period during which the next 1811–1812-type event could occur.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 35° to 37° latitude; -91.1° to -89° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Martitia P. Tuttle, Eugene S. Schweig, John D. Sims, Robert H. Lafferty, Lorraine W. Wolf, Marion L. Haynes. 2002. The earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010227

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Efficient physics‐informed ground‐motion simulations with reduced‐order models: CyberShake implications and high‐resolution site terms for southern San Andreas fault earthquakes

Recent advances in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) leverage physics‐based ground‐motion simulations to estimate seismic hazard, such as the CyberShake project. However, computational costs quickly escalate when performing PSHA for numerous faults or sites and can become prohibitively expensive. To reduce computational demands, CyberShake uses reciprocity and interpolates physics‐informed corrections from simulations conducted at fewer locations, but the accuracy of these interpolations remains poorly quantified. To quantify the interpolation accuracy, we derive high‐resolution, frequency‐dependent site terms for southern California and compare them with interpolated site terms using the CyberShake approach. We accomplish this by performing a set of earthquake point‐source simulations distributed along the nonplanar fault geometry for the southern San Andreas fault (SSAF) extending from Bombay Beach to Lake Hughes. Using SeisSol, we simulate three minutes of viscoelastic seismic wave propagation for these sources and store the horizontal‐component Green’s functions for 480,000 sites. We then use a scientific machine learning approach based on interpolated proper orthogonal decomposition to construct an accurate reduced‐order model of the Green’s functions to efficiently predict effective amplitude spectra (EAS) for finite‐source rupture models of SSAF earthquakes. Using minimum curvature interpolation with tension, as used in CyberShake, we compare the interpolated site terms against our high‐resolution site terms. We identify local discrepancies with EAS differing by up to a factor of approximately three. Furthermore, we identify locations where unexpectedly high or low ground motions are missed when using the interpolated dataset for these earthquakes. We estimate that our approach may be used within CyberShake to reduce the time‐to‐solution by a factor of 336 for the entire earthquake rupture forecast. Our analysis of physics‐based site terms provides more insight into the seismic hazard due to SSAF ruptures and guides future developments by combining high‐performance computing and reduced‐order modeling techniques for PSHA.

California↗

USGS2026

Simulation-based scenario ShakeMaps for large magnitude (MW6.5+) crustal earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults, Washington, USA

Scenario ground‐motion maps based on empirical ground‐motion models (GMMs) provide a rapid and generally reliable means of estimating the amplitude and distribution of earthquake shaking. However, because GMMs are designed for broad applicability, they often rely on simplified representations of Earth structure, which can limit their accuracy in regions with complex source, path, and site effects. This can substantially impact the accuracy of predicted shaking in areas like western Washington State, where deep, interconnected basin structure exerts a strong influence on seismic‐wave propagation. In this study, we present a new suite of simulation‐based scenario ShakeMaps that characterize ground shaking from large‐magnitude ( ⁠ M W 6.5–7.5) earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults. These maps are developed using results from recent 3D wave propagation simulations ( Stone et al. , 2022 , 2023 , 2025 ) that incorporate realistic rupture geometries, variable slip distributions, and a regional 3D seismic velocity model with shallow soils. Broadband ground motions are estimated by combining the low‐frequency (<1 Hz) deterministic seismograms from these studies with high‐frequency (1–10 Hz) stochastic seismograms. Simulated ground motions are corrected to account for the enforced minimum shear‐wave velocity and nonlinear site response. The resulting ShakeMaps represent median ground‐shaking estimates derived from multiple rupture scenarios with varying slip distributions and hypocenter locations for each fault. To extend ShakeMap coverage beyond the simulation domain (i.e., into eastern Washington, northern Oregon, and southwestern British Columbia), we scale GMM‐based ground‐motion estimates using amplification patterns observed in the simulations. These new ShakeMaps reveal the substantial influence of deep basin structure on shaking intensity, underscoring the importance of considering crustal structure complexity in regional hazard assessments for the Pacific Northwest.

Washington↗

USGS2026

Testing characteristic magnitude distributions in modern PSHA models

The characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis predicts a higher rate of large earthquakes than a Gutenberg–Richter extrapolation of the small‐earthquake rate would imply. Characteristic magnitude distributions have been commonly applied to faults in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and in modern models they can emerge from the way short‐term seismicity constraints are combined with long‐term geologic and geodetic constraints. We test the characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis by comparing the fault‐based magnitude distributions from the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23) in the Western United States with observed seismicity over the past 93 yr. We find that observed magnitude distributions fall outside the model‐predicted confidence bounds in regions where NSHM23 produces characteristic magnitude distributions: in these regions, the model predicts higher rates of large earthquakes than are observed. An analysis of the earlier California model (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3) also reveals discrepancies between the modeled and observed magnitude distributions. In addition, we find that observed magnitude distributions near modeled faults are not significantly different from those in background regions. These results challenge the prevalence of characteristic magnitude distributions in fault‐based seismic hazard models and call for a reassessment of how disparate data sets are integrated in PSHA.

western United States↗