USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70242758

Shallow faulting and folding in the epicentral area of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

Abstract

The moment magnitude ( ⁠ M w "> M w �w ⁠ ) ∼7 earthquake that struck Charleston, South Carolina, on 31 August 1886 is the largest historical earthquake in the United States east of the Appalachian Mountains. The fault(s) that ruptured during this earthquake has never been conclusively identified, and conflicting fault models have been proposed. Here we interpret reprocessed seismic reflection profiles, reprocessed legacy aeromagnetic data, and newly collected ground penetrating radar (GPR) profiles to delineate faults deforming the Cretaceous and younger Atlantic Coastal Plain (ACP) strata in the epicentral area of the 1886 earthquake. The data show evidence for faults folding or vertically displacing ACP strata, including apparent displacements of near‐surface strata (upper ∼20 m). Aeromagnetic data show several northeast (NE)‐trending lineaments, two of which correlate with faults and folds with vertical displacements as great as 55 m on the seismic reflection and radar profiles. ACP strata show only minor thickness changes across these structures, indicating that much of the displacement postdates the shallowest well‐imaged ACP strata of Eocene age. Faults imaged on the seismic reflection profiles appear on GPR profiles to displace the erosional surface at the top of the upper Eocene to Oligocene Cooper Group, including where railroad tracks were bent during the 1886 earthquake. Some faults coincide with changes in river trends, bifurcations of river channels, and unusual river meanders that could be related to recent fault motion. In contrast to our interpreted NE fault trends, earthquake locations and some focal mechanisms in the modern seismic zone have been interpreted as defining a nearly north‐striking, west‐dipping zone of aftershocks from the 1886 earthquake. The relationship between the modern seismicity and the faults we image is therefore enigmatic. However, multiple faults in the area clearly have been active since the Eocene and deform strata in the upper 20 m, providing potential targets for field‐based geologic investigations.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.63062131238351° to 32.962940205072556° latitude; -80.08844700372319° to -79.7205632604179° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas L. Pratt, Anjana K. Shah, R.C Counts, J. Wright Horton,, M.C. Chapman. 2022-05-06. Shallow faulting and folding in the epicentral area of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210329

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↗