Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70263617

Static and dynamic strain in the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

Abstract

During the 1886 Mw 7.3 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, three railroads emanating from the city were exposed to severe shaking. Expansion joints in segmented railroad tracks are designed to allow railroad infrastructure to withstand a few parts in 10,000 of thermoelastic strain. We show that, in 1886, transient contractions exceeding this limiting value buckled rails, and transient extensions pulled rails apart. Calculated values for dynamic strain in the meizoseismal region are in reasonable agreement with those anticipated from the relation between strain and moment magnitude proposed by Barbour et al. (2021) and exceed estimated tectonic strain released by the earthquake by an order of magnitude. Almost all of the documented disturbances of railroad lines, including evidence for shortening of the rails, can thus be ascribed to the effects of dynamic strain changes, not static strain. Little or no damage to railroads was reported outside the estimated 10 −4 dynamic strain contour. The correspondence between 10 −3 and 2×10 −4 contours of dynamic strain and Mercalli intensity 9 and 8, anticipated from the dependence of each quantity on peak ground velocity, suggests it may be possible to use railroad damage to quantitatively estimate shaking intensity. At one location, near Rantowles, ≈20 km west of Charleston, a photograph of buckled track taken one day after the earthquake has been cited as evidence for shallow dextral slip and has long focused a search for a causal fault in this region. Photogrammetric analysis reveals that the buckle was caused by transient contraction of <10 cm with no dextral offset. Our results further weaken the evidence for faulting in the swamps and forests south of the Ashley River in 1886, hitherto motivated by the photograph and limited macroseismic evidence for high‐intensity shaking.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.6° to 33.2° latitude; -80.5° to -79.85° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Roger Bilham, Susan E. Hough. 2024-05-20. Static and dynamic strain in the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120240025

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Introduction to the special section on improving measurements of earthquake source parameters

Earthquake source parameters such as magnitude, seismic moment, source dimension, stress drop, and radiated energy are fundamental to understanding earthquake physics, and are also key ingredients in earthquake ground‐motion modeling, rupture simulation, and statistical seismology. However, the uncertainties in these parameters estimated from the radiated seismic wavefield are large due to variability in approaches, including site and attenuation characterizations, and so estimates for an individual earthquake made by different studies can vary greatly. Estimating spectral source parameters remains a popular topic, due to a combination of their intrinsic importance and their apparent ease of measurement, but also a controversial one, due to many sources of variability and large uncertainty. The available methods coupled with necessary parameter choices and assumptions in the analysis make it challenging for researchers to apply methods or understand the reliability in results or reported source parameters. This Special Section on Improving Measurements of Earthquake Source Parameters showcasing comparisons between methods and studies seeks to alleviate some of these difficulties to help the community identify the important components and trade‐offs of decomposing recorded seismograms into their source, path, and site components.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

The impact of source time function complexity on stress drop estimates

Earthquake stress drop—a key parameter for describing the energetics of earthquake rupture—can be estimated in several different, but theoretically equivalent, ways. However, independent estimates for the same earthquakes sometimes differ significantly. We find that earthquake source complexity plays a significant role in why theoretically (for simple rupture models) equivalent methods produce different estimates. We apply time‐ and frequency‐domain methods to estimate stress drops for real earthquakes in the SCARDEC (Seismic source ChAracteristics Retrieved from DEConvolving teleseismic body waves, Vallée and Douet, 2016 ) source time function (STF) database and analyze how rupture complexity drives stress‐drop estimate discrepancies. Specifically, we identify two complexity metrics—Brune relative energy (BRE) and spectral decay—that parameterize an earthquake’s complexity relative to the standard Brune model and strongly correlate with the estimate discrepancies. We find that the observed systematic magnitude–stress‐drop trends may reflect underlying changes in STF complexity, not necessarily trends in actual stress drop. Both the decay and BRE parameters vary systematically with magnitude, but whether this magnitude–complexity relationship is real remains unresolved.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

A comprehensive fault system inversion approach: Methods and application to NSHM23

We present updated inversion‐based fault‐system solutions for the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23), standardizing earthquake rate model calculations on crustal faults across the western United States. We build upon the inversion methodology used in the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) to solve for time‐independent rates of earthquakes in an interconnected fault system. The updated model explicitly maps out a wide range of fault recurrence and segmentation behavior (epistemic uncertainty), more completely exploring the solution space of viable models beyond those of UCERF3. We also improve the simulated annealing implementation, greatly increasing computational efficiency (and thus inversion convergence), and introduce an adaptive constraint weight calculation algorithm that helps to mediate between competing constraints. Hazard calculations show that ingredient changes (especially fault and deformation models) are the primary driver of hazard changes between NSHM23 and UCERF3. Updates to the inversion methodology are also consequential near faults in which the slip rate in UCERF3 was poorly fit or was satisfied primarily using large multifault ruptures that are now restricted by explicit b ‐value and segmentation constraints.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America