Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70269604

Reflections on a trio of North American earthquakes in 1925

Abstract

In 1925, three moderately large damaging earthquakes occurred in North America over four months: the 28 February (local time; LT) M 6.2 Charlevoix, 27 June (LT) M 6.6 Montana, and 29 June M 6.5 Santa Barbara earthquakes. The centennial anniversaries of these events motivated this retrospective consideration focused on the ground motions generated by the three events, including a reconsideration of early intensity assignments for the Montana earthquake. At the time, these three earthquakes appeared to support the arguments of some geologists who downplayed the severity of seismic hazard in southern California relative to other parts of the country. Some of the arguments advanced at that time, for example that Los Angeles “has the least to fear from ‘Acts of God’ of any city under the American flag,” ( Hill, 1928 ) sound naïve if not laughable now, but a comparison of well‐constrained shaking distributions for the three earthquakes reveals the dramatic difference in wave propagation efficiency in western versus eastern North America (ENAM), which leads to moderate ENAM events being felt to much larger distances. At M 6.2, the 1925 Charlevoix earthquake was a notably large event in ENAM. This earthquake was the largest event in eastern Canada since 1870 and caused damage in the epicentral region in addition to towns as far away as 200 km, with felt shaking extending over 1000 km. In contrast, felt shaking from the Santa Barbara earthquake barely extended beyond ∼200 km. Compiling published intensity distributions for larger ENAM earthquakes, we show that perceptible earthquake shaking is not uncommon in ENAM over century time scales, but experience with weakly felt shaking may incline people to downplay potential earthquake risk.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Susan E. Hough, Maurice Lamontagne, John E. Ebel, L. Baise. 2025-07-25. Reflections on a trio of North American earthquakes in 1925. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220250149

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 discoveries

Digitizer Suite: The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory Digitizer Testing Suite

Laboratory testing of digitizers and seismometers helps ensure that prior to deployment the instrumentation can produce high quality data and is operating within specifications. In this work we detail the software package called: the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) Digitizer Test Suite. This Java software package provides several algorithms to verify various performance parameters of digitizers commonly used for recording analog seismic instruments. The goal of these tests is not to be exhaustive, but to identify common failures that could compromise the integrity of seismic data being recorded on the digitizer. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2018) routinely do comprehensive testing of digitizers for various monitoring missions. While these tests reports are valuable for comprehensively characterizing a recording system, it would be resource intensive to conduct such tests on every seismic recorder used in a network. We focus on tests that include ways to estimate the sensitivity, timing, self-noise, and clip-level of the digitizer, as well as the fidelity of the signal being recorded. The software is publicly available and provides a way for the community to verify the integrity of a digitizer using a minimum amount of outside equipment.

Seismological Research Letters

pySATSI: A Python package for computing focal mechanism stress inversions

We introduce pySATSI, a Python package for computing earthquake focal mechanism stress inversions. This algorithm can handle a wide variety of types of stress inversion problems with a single script and can duplicate many capabilities of preceding methodologies. We also add new capabilities that include spatiotemporally variable inversion grids, damped stress estimates for clusters with few or no focal mechanisms, and variable fault‐plane ambiguities that the user can assign to individual events. In addition, we added the ability to use damped stress inversions with fault‐plane ambiguity probabilities that are weighted by fault instabilities. Our algorithm is computationally efficient with faster runtimes than previous algorithms, scales well for large datasets, and can be easily parallelized.

Seismological Research Letters