USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70177094

Maximum magnitude ( M max ) in the central and eastern United States for the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey Hazard Model

Abstract

Probabilistic seismic‐hazard assessment (PSHA) requires an estimate of M max , the moment magnitude M of the largest earthquake that could occur within a specified area. Sparse seismicity hinders M max estimation in the central and eastern United States (CEUS) and tectonically similar regions worldwide (stable continental regions [SCRs]). A new global catalog of moderate‐to‐large SCR earthquakes is analyzed with minimal assumptions about enigmatic geologic controls on SCR M max . An earlier observation that SCR earthquakes of M 7.0 and larger occur in young (250–23 Ma) passive continental margins and associated rifts but not in cratons is not strongly supported by the new catalog. SCR earthquakes of M 7.5 and larger are slightly more numerous and reach slightly higher M in young passive margins and rifts than in cratons. However, overall histograms of M from young margins and rifts and from cratons are statistically indistinguishable. This conclusion is robust under uncertainties in M , the locations of SCR boundaries, and which of two available global SCR catalogs is used. The conclusion stems largely from recent findings that (1) large southeast Asian earthquakes once thought to be SCR were in actively deforming crust and (2) long escarpments in cratonic Australia were formed by prehistoric faulting. The 2014 seismic‐hazard model of the U.S. Geological Survey represents CEUS M max as four‐point probability distributions. The distributions have weighted averages of M 7.0 in cratons and M 7.4 in passive margins and rifts. These weighted averages are consistent with M max estimates of other SCR PSHAs of the CEUS, southeastern Canada, Australia, and India.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Russell L. Wheeler. 2016-08-30. Maximum magnitude ( M max ) in the central and eastern United States for the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey Hazard Model. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160048

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↗