USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70155213

Why the New Madrid earthquakes are M 7–8 and the Charleston earthquake is ∼M 7

Chris H. Cramer·Oliver S. Boyd
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Estimates of magnitudes of large historical earthquakes are an essential input to and can seriously affect seismic‐hazard estimates. The earthquake‐intensity observations, modified Mercalli intensities (MMI), and assigned magnitudes M of the 1811–1812 New Madrid events have been reinterpreted several times in the last decade and have been a source of controversy in making seismic‐hazard estimates in the central United States. Observations support the concept that the larger the earthquake, the greater the maximum‐felt distance. For the same crustal attenuation and local soil conditions, magnitude should be the main influence on intensity values at large distances. We apply this concept by comparing the mean MMI at distances of 600–1200 km for each of the four largest New Madrid 1811–1812 earthquakes, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, the 1929 M 7.2 Grand Banks earthquake, and the 2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India, earthquake. We fit the intensity observations using the form MMI= A + C ×dist−0.8×log(dist) to better define intensity attenuation in eastern North America (ENA). The intensity attenuation in cratonic India differs from ENA and is corrected to ENA using both the above estimate and published intensity relations. We evaluate source, marine geophysical, Q , and stress‐drop information, as well as a 1929 Milne–Shaw record at Chicago to confirm that the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake occurred in ENA crust. Our direct comparison of mean intensities beyond 600 km suggests M 7.5, 7.3, 7.7, and 6.9 for the three New Madrid 1811–1812 mainshocks and the largest aftershock and M 7.0 for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, with an estimated uncertainty of 0.3 units at the 95% confidence level (based on a Monte Carlo analysis). Our mean New Madrid and Charleston mainshock magnitudes are similar to those of Bakun and Hopper (2004) and are much higher than those of Hough and Page (2011) for New Madrid.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chris H. Cramer, Oliver S. Boyd. 2014-10-28. Why the New Madrid earthquakes are M 7–8 and the Charleston earthquake is ∼M 7. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120257

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Efficient physics‐informed ground‐motion simulations with reduced‐order models: CyberShake implications and high‐resolution site terms for southern San Andreas fault earthquakes

Recent advances in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) leverage physics‐based ground‐motion simulations to estimate seismic hazard, such as the CyberShake project. However, computational costs quickly escalate when performing PSHA for numerous faults or sites and can become prohibitively expensive. To reduce computational demands, CyberShake uses reciprocity and interpolates physics‐informed corrections from simulations conducted at fewer locations, but the accuracy of these interpolations remains poorly quantified. To quantify the interpolation accuracy, we derive high‐resolution, frequency‐dependent site terms for southern California and compare them with interpolated site terms using the CyberShake approach. We accomplish this by performing a set of earthquake point‐source simulations distributed along the nonplanar fault geometry for the southern San Andreas fault (SSAF) extending from Bombay Beach to Lake Hughes. Using SeisSol, we simulate three minutes of viscoelastic seismic wave propagation for these sources and store the horizontal‐component Green’s functions for 480,000 sites. We then use a scientific machine learning approach based on interpolated proper orthogonal decomposition to construct an accurate reduced‐order model of the Green’s functions to efficiently predict effective amplitude spectra (EAS) for finite‐source rupture models of SSAF earthquakes. Using minimum curvature interpolation with tension, as used in CyberShake, we compare the interpolated site terms against our high‐resolution site terms. We identify local discrepancies with EAS differing by up to a factor of approximately three. Furthermore, we identify locations where unexpectedly high or low ground motions are missed when using the interpolated dataset for these earthquakes. We estimate that our approach may be used within CyberShake to reduce the time‐to‐solution by a factor of 336 for the entire earthquake rupture forecast. Our analysis of physics‐based site terms provides more insight into the seismic hazard due to SSAF ruptures and guides future developments by combining high‐performance computing and reduced‐order modeling techniques for PSHA.

California↗
USGS2026

Simulation-based scenario ShakeMaps for large magnitude (MW6.5+) crustal earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults, Washington, USA

Scenario ground‐motion maps based on empirical ground‐motion models (GMMs) provide a rapid and generally reliable means of estimating the amplitude and distribution of earthquake shaking. However, because GMMs are designed for broad applicability, they often rely on simplified representations of Earth structure, which can limit their accuracy in regions with complex source, path, and site effects. This can substantially impact the accuracy of predicted shaking in areas like western Washington State, where deep, interconnected basin structure exerts a strong influence on seismic‐wave propagation. In this study, we present a new suite of simulation‐based scenario ShakeMaps that characterize ground shaking from large‐magnitude ( ⁠ M W 6.5–7.5) earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults. These maps are developed using results from recent 3D wave propagation simulations ( Stone et al. , 2022 , 2023 , 2025 ) that incorporate realistic rupture geometries, variable slip distributions, and a regional 3D seismic velocity model with shallow soils. Broadband ground motions are estimated by combining the low‐frequency (<1 Hz) deterministic seismograms from these studies with high‐frequency (1–10 Hz) stochastic seismograms. Simulated ground motions are corrected to account for the enforced minimum shear‐wave velocity and nonlinear site response. The resulting ShakeMaps represent median ground‐shaking estimates derived from multiple rupture scenarios with varying slip distributions and hypocenter locations for each fault. To extend ShakeMap coverage beyond the simulation domain (i.e., into eastern Washington, northern Oregon, and southwestern British Columbia), we scale GMM‐based ground‐motion estimates using amplification patterns observed in the simulations. These new ShakeMaps reveal the substantial influence of deep basin structure on shaking intensity, underscoring the importance of considering crustal structure complexity in regional hazard assessments for the Pacific Northwest.

Washington↗
USGS2026

Testing characteristic magnitude distributions in modern PSHA models

The characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis predicts a higher rate of large earthquakes than a Gutenberg–Richter extrapolation of the small‐earthquake rate would imply. Characteristic magnitude distributions have been commonly applied to faults in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and in modern models they can emerge from the way short‐term seismicity constraints are combined with long‐term geologic and geodetic constraints. We test the characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis by comparing the fault‐based magnitude distributions from the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23) in the Western United States with observed seismicity over the past 93 yr. We find that observed magnitude distributions fall outside the model‐predicted confidence bounds in regions where NSHM23 produces characteristic magnitude distributions: in these regions, the model predicts higher rates of large earthquakes than are observed. An analysis of the earlier California model (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3) also reveals discrepancies between the modeled and observed magnitude distributions. In addition, we find that observed magnitude distributions near modeled faults are not significantly different from those in background regions. These results challenge the prevalence of characteristic magnitude distributions in fault‐based seismic hazard models and call for a reassessment of how disparate data sets are integrated in PSHA.

western United States↗