USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70236959

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake a century later: Introduction to the special section

Abstract

The great 1906 San Francisco earthquake is perhaps the landmark event in the history of earthquake science. It began with a foreshock at 5:12 a.m. local time in the morning of 18 April 1906. Some 30 sec later, the main event initiated on the San Andreas fault, just off the San Francisco coast ( Lawson, 1908 ). Within 90 sec, nearly 480 km of the San Andreas fault ruptured (see Fig. 1 ), extending south to the northern end of the creeping section near San Juan Bautista and north to the terminus of the fault at the triple junction near Cape Mendocino ( Song et al. , 2008 ). As it ruptured, it generated powerful seismic waves over the entire rupture length and set in motion a chain of events that led to the destruction of most of San Francisco, the largest city of the western United States at the time. The earthquake occurred in the early days of instrumental seismology, which renders the data difficult to analyze, but our best estimate is that the moment magnitude was 7.9 ( Song et al. , 2008 ), about 26 times the size of the 1989 magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake as measured by seismic moment ( Hanks and Krawinkler, 1991 ; Song et al. , 2008 ).

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.92464453144099° to 40.9964840143779° latitude; -124.56298828125001° to -120.091552734375° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Brad T. Aagaard, Gregory C. Beroza. 2008. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake a century later: Introduction to the special section. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060401

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↗