USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70048647

The Mw 5.8 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake of August 2011 and aftershock sequence: constraints on earthquake source parameters and fault geometry

Abstract

The M w 5.8 earthquake of 23 August 2011 (17:51:04 UTC) (moment, M0 5.7×10 17 N·m) occurred near Mineral, Virginia, within the central Virginia seismic zone and was felt by more people than any other earthquake in United States history. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received 148,638 felt reports from 31 states and 4 Canadian provinces. The USGS PAGER system estimates as many as 120,000 people were exposed to shaking intensity levels of IV and greater, with approximately 10,000 exposed to shaking as high as intensity VIII. Both regional and teleseismic moment tensor solutions characterize the earthquake as a northeast‐striking reverse fault that nucleated at a depth of approximately 7±2 km. The distribution of reported macroseismic intensities is roughly ten times the area of a similarly sized earthquake in the western United States (Horton and Williams, 2012). Near‐source and far‐field damage reports, which extend as far away as Washington, D.C., (135 km away) and Baltimore, Maryland, (200 km away) are consistent with an earthquake of this size and depth in the eastern United States (EUS). Within the first few days following the earthquake, several government and academic institutions installed 36 portable seismograph stations in the epicentral region, making this among the best‐recorded aftershock sequences in the EUS. Based on modeling of these data, we provide a detailed description of the source parameters of the mainshock and analysis of the subsequent aftershock sequence for defining the fault geometry, area of rupture, and observations of the aftershock sequence magnitude–frequency and temporal distribution. The observed slope of the magnitude–frequency curve or b‐value for the aftershock sequence is consistent with previous EUS studies (b=0.75), suggesting that most of the accumulated strain was released by the mainshock. The aftershocks define a rupture that extends between approximately 2–8 km in depth and 8–10 km along the strike of the fault plane. Best‐fit modeling of the geometry of the aftershock sequence defines a rupture plane that strikes N36°E and dips to the east‐southeast at 49.5°. Moment tensor solutions of the mainshock and larger aftershocks are consistent with the distribution of aftershock locations, both indicating reverse slip along a northeast–southwest striking southeast‐dipping fault plane.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 30.86° to 46.86° latitude; -88.86° to -66.8° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Daniel E. McNamara, H.M. Benz, Robert B. Herrmann, Eric A. Bergman, Paul Earle, Anne Meltzer, Mitch Withers, Martin Chapman. 2013-12-24. The Mw 5.8 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake of August 2011 and aftershock sequence: constraints on earthquake source parameters and fault geometry. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130058

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↗