USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70148003

Ground motion-simulations of 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes, central United States

Abstract

We performed a suite of numerical simulations based on the 1811–1812 New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ) earthquakes, which demonstrate the importance of 3D geologic structure and rupture directivity on the ground‐motion response throughout a broad region of the central United States (CUS) for these events. Our simulation set consists of 20 hypothetical earthquakes located along two faults associated with the current seismicity trends in the NMSZ. The hypothetical scenarios range in magnitude from M 7.0 to 7.7 and consider various epicenters, slip distributions, and rupture characterization approaches. The low‐frequency component of our simulations was computed deterministically up to a frequency of 1 Hz using a regional 3D seismic velocity model and was combined with higher‐frequency motions calculated for a 1D medium to generate broadband synthetics (0–40 Hz in some cases). For strike‐slip earthquakes located on the southwest–northeast‐striking NMSZ axial arm of seismicity, our simulations show 2–10 s period energy channeling along the trend of the Reelfoot rift and focusing strong shaking northeast toward Paducah, Kentucky, and Evansville, Indiana, and southwest toward Little Rock, Arkansas. These waveguide effects are further accentuated by rupture directivity such that an event with a western epicenter creates strong amplification toward the northeast, whereas an eastern epicenter creates strong amplification toward the southwest. These effects are not as prevalent for simulations on the reverse‐mechanism Reelfoot fault, and large peak ground velocities (>40  cm/s) are typically confined to the near‐source region along the up‐dip projection of the fault. Nonetheless, these basin response and rupture directivity effects have a significant impact on the pattern and level of the estimated intensities, which leads to additional uncertainty not previously considered in magnitude estimates of the 1811–1812 sequence based only on historical reports. The region covered by our simulation domain encompasses a large portion of the CUS centered on the NMSZ, including several major metropolitan areas. Based on our simulations, more than eight million people living and working near the NMSZ would experience potentially damaging ground motion and modified Mercalli intensities ranging from VI to VIII if a repeat of the 1811–1812 earthquakes occurred today. Moreover, the duration of strong ground shaking in the greater Memphis metropolitan area could last from 30 to more than 60 s, depending on the magnitude and epicenter.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.15584570226544° to 37.483576550426996° latitude; -90.6976318359375° to -88.5552978515625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L. Ramirez-Guzman, Robert Graves, Kim Olsen, Oliver S. Boyd, Chris H. Cramer, Stephen H. Hartzell, Sidao Ni, Paul G. Somerville, Robert Williams, Jinquan Zhong. 2015-07-30. Ground motion-simulations of 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes, central United States. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140330

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↗