Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70195221

Aftershocks, earthquake effects, and the location of the large 14 December 1872 earthquake near Entiat, central Washington

Abstract

Reported aftershock durations, earthquake effects, and other observations from the large 14 December 1872 earthquake in central Washington are consistent with an epicenter near Entiat, Washington. Aftershocks were reported for more than 3 months only near Entiat. Modal intensity data described in this article are consistent with an Entiat area epicenter, where the largest modified Mercalli intensities, VIII, were assigned between Lake Chelan and Wenatchee. Although ground failures and water effects were widespread, there is a concentration of these features along the Columbia River and its tributaries in the Entiat area. Assuming linear ray paths, misfits from 23 reports of the directions of horizontal shaking have a local minima at Entiat, assuming the reports are describing surface waves, but the region having comparable misfit is large. Broadband seismograms recorded for comparable ray paths provide insight into the reasons why possible S – P times estimated from felt reports at two locations are several seconds too small to be consistent with an Entiat area epicenter.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas M. Brocher, Margaret G. Hopper, S.T. Ted Algermissen, David M. Perkins, Stanley R. Brockman, Edouard P. Arnold. 2017-12-19. Aftershocks, earthquake effects, and the location of the large 14 December 1872 earthquake near Entiat, central Washington. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170224

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↗