Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions - III. New Madrid 1811-1812, Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755

Geophysical Journal International

Volumn 126, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 314-344

  Johnston, Arch C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Earthquake intensity; Earthquake source mechanism; Seismic moment

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKE; INTENSITY; INTRAPLATE SEISMICITY; SEISMIC MOMENT; SOURCE MECHANISM;

PORTUGAL, LISBON; USA, NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE;

EID: 0030465963     PISSN: 0956540X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1996.tb05294.x     Document Type: Review

References (98)

1. Abe, K., 1979. Size of great earthquakes of 1837-1974 inferred from tsunami data, J. geophys. Res., 84, 1561-1568.
2. Abe, K., 1994. Instrumental magnitueds of historical earthquakes, 1892 to 1898, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 84, 415-425.
3. Aki, K., 1972. Earthquake mechanism, Tectonophysics, 13, 423-446.
4. Amick, D., Gelinas, R., Maurath, G., Cannon, R., Moore, D., Billington, E. & Kemppinen, H., 1990. Paleoliquefaction features along the Atlantic seaboard, NUREG/CR-5613, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
5. Anderson, J.G., Savage, M. & Quaas, R., 1995. 'Strong' ground motions in North America from the Bolivia earthquake of June 9, 1994 (Mw=8.3), Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 2293-2296.
6. Bergman, E.A., 1986. Intraplate earthquakes and the state of stress in oceanic lithosphere, Tectonophysics, 132, 1-35.
7. Bevis, J., 1757. Phenomena of the great earthquake of November 1, 1755 in various parts of the globe, in The History and Philosophy of Earthquakes from the Remotest to the Present Times, pp. 280-334, ed. Bevis, J., J. Nourse, London.
8. Bollinger, G.A., 1977. Reinterpretation of the intensity data for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, in Studies Related to the Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquake of 1886 - A Preliminary Report, US Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1028, pp. 17-32, ed. Rankin, D.W.
9. Bollinger, G.A., 1993. Listing of damage areas and magnitudes for United States earthquakes 1811-1989, VTSO Special Study Series No. 93-1, Virg. Polytech. Inst. & State University, Blacksburg.
10. Bollinger, G.A., Chapman, M.C. & Sibol, M.S., 1993. A comparison of earthquake damage areas as a function of magnitude across the United States, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 83, 1064-1080.
11. Bollinger, G.A. & Stover, C.W., 1976. List of intensities for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake, US Geol. Surv. Open-File Rpt 76-66, 31 pp.
12. Brune, J.N., 1970. Tectonic stress and spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes, J. geophys. Res., 75, 4997-5009.
13. Butler, R., McCreery, C., Frazer, L.N. & Walker, D., 1985. High-frequency attenuation in the western Pacific (abst), EOS, Trans. Am. geophys. Un., 66, 305.
14. 0=6.8, earthquake in the eastern United States, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 76, 1-17.
15. Canas, J.A., Egozcue, J.J., Pujades, L. & Pérez, J.A., 1987. Crustal coda-Q in the Iberian Peninsula, Ann. Geophys., 5B, 657-662.
16. Chapman, M.C., Bollinger, G.A., Sibol, M.S. & Stephenson, D.E., 1990. The influence of the Coastal Plain sedimentary wedge on strong ground motions from the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, Earthq. Spectra, 6, 617-640.
17. Chiu, J.-M., Johnston, A.C. & Yang, Y.T., 1992. Imaging the active faults of the central New Madrid seismic zone using PANDA array data, Seism. Res. Lett., 63, 375-393.
18. Das, S., 1982. Appropriate boundary conditions for modeling very long earthquakes and physical consequences, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 72, 1911-1926.
19. Davison, C., 1936. Great Earthquakes, Thomas Murby & Co., London.
20. Dewey, J.W., 1985. A review of recent research on the seismotectonics of the southeastern seaboard and an evaluation of hypotheses on the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, NUREG/CR-4339, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
21. Dutton, C.E., 1889. The Charleston earthquake of August 31, 1886, in US Geol. Surv. Ninth Ann. Rpt., 203-528.
22. Ervin, C.P. & McGinnis, L.D., 1975. Reelfoot rift: Reactivated precursor to the Mississippi embayment, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 86, 1287-1295.
23. Frankel, A., 1994. Implications of felt area-magnitude relations for earthquake scaling and the average frequency of perceptible ground motion, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 84, 462-465.
24. Fukao, Y., 1973. Thrust faulting at a lithospheric plate boundary: The Portugal earthquake of 1969, Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 18, 205-216.
25. Fuller, M.L., 1912. The New Madrid earthquake, US Geol. Surv. Bull. 494, 119 pp.
26. Gohn, G.S, ed., 1983. Studies Related to the Charleston, South Carolina Earthquake of 1886-Tectonics and Seismicity, US Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1313, 375 pp.
27. Gomberg, J.S., 1992. Tectonic deformation in the New Madrid seismic zone: Inferences from boundary element modeling, Seism. Res. Lett., 63, 407-425.
28. Gomberg, J., 1993. Tectonic deformation in the New Madrid seismic zone: Inferences from map view and cross-sectional boundary element models, J. geophys. Res., 98, 6639-6664.
29. Gordon, R.G. & Stein, S., 1992. Global tectonics and space geodesy, Science, 256, 333-342.
30. Grimison, N.L. & Chen, W.-P., 1986. The Azores-Gibraltar plate boundary: Focal mechanisms, depths of earthquakes, and their tectonic implications, J. geophys. Res., 91, 2029-2047.
31. Hanks, T.C. & Johnston, A.C., 1992. Common features of the excitation and propagation of strong ground motion for North American earthquakes, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 82, 1-23.
32. Hanks, T.C. & Kanamori, H., 1979. A moment magnitude scale, J. geophys. Res., 84, 2348-2350.
33. Herrmann, R.B., Cheng, S.-H. & Nuttli, O.W., 1978. Archeoseismology applied to the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 to 1812, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 68, 1751-1759.
34. Hopper, M.G. & Algermissen, S.T., 1980. An evaluation of the effects of the October, 31, 1895, Charleston, Missouri, earthquake, US Geol. Surv. Open-File Rpt 80-778, 43 pp.
35. Hopper, M.G., Algermissen, S.T. & Dobrovolny, E.E., 1983. Estimation of earthquake effects associated with a great earthquake in the New Madrid seismic zone, US Geol. Surv. Open-File Rpt 83-179, 94 pp.
36. Jibson, R.W. & Keefer, D.K., 1988. Landslides triggered by earthquakes in the central Mississippi Valley, Tennessee and Kentucky, US Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1336-C, 24 pp.
37. Johnson, W.J. & Kissenpfennig, J.F., 1977. Vibratory ground motion from a distant large magnitude earthquake: A discussion of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, Proc. Sixth World Conf. Earthq. Eng., Vol. 1, pp. 330-331, Indian Soc. Earthq. Tech., Sarita Prakashan, Meerut, India.
38. Johnston, A.C., 1994. The stable continental region earthquake database, in The Earthquakes of Stable Continental Regions: Assessment of Large Earthquake Potential, EPRI Rpt. TR-102261, chapt. 3, pp. 3-1-3-80, ed. Schneider, J., Electric Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto.
39. Johnston, A.C., 1996a. Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions - I. Instrumental seismicity, Geophys. J. Int., 124, 381-414.
40. Johnston, A.C., 1996b. Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions - II. Historical seismicity, Geophys. J. Int., 125, 639-678.
41. Johnston, A.C. & Schweig, E.S., 1996. The enigma of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812, An. Rev. Earth planet. Sci., 24, 339-384.
42. Kanamori, H., 1994. Mechanics of earthquakes, An. Rev. Earth planet. Sci., 22, 207-237.
43. Kanamori, H. & Anderson, D.L., 1975. Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 65, 1073-1093.
44. Keefer, D.K., 1984. Landslides caused by earthquakes, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 95, 406-421.
45. Kendrick, T.D., 1957. The Lisbon Earthquake, J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, PA.
46. Liu, L., 1993. Continental seismotectonics: Stress, strain, and strength, PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
47. López Arroyo, A. & Udias, A., 1972. Aftershock sequence and focal parameters of the February 28, 1969 earthquake of the Azores - Gibraltar fracture zone, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 62, 699-720.
48. Luetgert, J.H., Bentz, H.M. & Madabhushi, S., 1994. Crustal structure beneath the Alantic Coastal Plain of South Carolina, Seism. Res. Lett., 65, 180-191.
49. Machado, F., 1966. Contribucao para o estudio do terremoto de a de Nov. de 1755, Rev. Fac. Cien. de Lisboa, Ser. C., 14, 19-31.
50. Marple, R.T. & Talwani, P., 1993. Evidence of possible tectonic upwarping along the South Carolina coastal plain from an examination of river morphology and elevation data, Geology, 21, 651-654.
51. Martinez Solares, J.M., Lópes Arroyo, A. & Mezcua, J., 1979. Isoseismal map of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake obtained from Spanish data, Tectonophysics, 53, 301-313.
52. McCartan, L. & Gettings, M.E., 1991. Possible relationship between seismicity and warm intrusive bodies in the Charleston, South Carolina, and New Madrid, Missouri, areas, US Geol. Surv. Bull. 1953, 18 pp.
53. Milne, D., 1841. Times at which the shock of the earthquake of 1st November 1755 reached different places, and the principal phenomena there, Edin. New Phil. J., 31, 37-40.
54. Mitchell, B.J., 1995. Anelastic structure and evolution of the continental crust and upper mantle from seismic surface wave attenuation, Rev. Geophys., 33, 441-462.
55. Mitchell, B.J., Pan, Y., Chen, D. & Xie, J.-K., 1993. Q and crustal evolution in stable continental regions (abst), Seism. Res. Lett., 64, 262.
56. Moreira, V.S., 1989. Seismicity of the Portuguese continental margin, in Earthquakes at North-Atlantic Passive Margins: Neotectonics and Postglacial Rebound, pp. 533-545, eds Gregersen, S. & Basham, P.W., Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht.
57. Nelson, W.A., 1924. Reelfoot - An earthquake lake in Tennessee, Nat. geograph. Mag., 45 (1), 95-114.
58. Nuttli, O.W., 1973. The Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811 and 1812; Intensities, ground motion, and magnitudes, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 63, 227-248.
59. Nuttli, O.W., 1974. Magnitude-recurrence relations for central Mississippi Valley earthquakes, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 64, 1189-1207.
60. Nuttli, O.W., 1981. Evaluation of past studies and identification of needed studies of the effects of major earthquakes occurring in the New Madrid fault zone, CUSEPP Rpt 81-1, Fed. Emerg. Mgmt. Agency, Washington, DC, 29 pp.
61. Nuttli, O.W., 1983. Average seismic source-parameter relations for mid-plate earthquakes, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 73, 519-535.
62. Nuttli, O.W., 1987. The Effects of Earthquakes in the Central United States, Central US Earthquake Consortium, Memphis, TN, 33 pp.
63. Nuttli, O.W., Bollinger, G.A. & Griffiths, D.W., 1979. On the relation between modified Mercalli intensity and body-wave magnitude, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 69, 893-909.
64. Nuttli, O.W., Bollinger, G.A. & Herrmann, R.B., 1986. The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake - A 1986 perspective, US Geol. Surv. Circular 985, 52 pp.
65. Nuttli, O.W., Jost, M.L., Herrmann, R.B. & Bollinger, G.A., 1992. Numerical models of the rupture mechanics and far-field ground motion of the 1886 South Carolina earthquake, US Geol. Surv. Bull. 1586, submitted.
66. Obermeier, S.F., 1988. Liquefaction potential in the central Mississippi Valley, US Geol. Surv. Bull. 1832, 21 pp.
67. Obermeier, S.F., 1989. The New Madrid earthquakes: An engineering-geologic interpretation of relict liquefaction features, US Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1336-B, 114 pp., eds Russ, D.P. & Crone, A.J.
68. Officer, C. & Page, J., 1993. Tales of the Earth, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
69. Pedersen, G., Gjevik, B., Harbitz, C.B., Dybesland, E., Johnsgard, H. & Langtangen, H.P., 1995. Tsunami case studies and model analysis; Final GITEC-report, preprint series no. 4, Matematisk institutt, Universitetet i Oslo, 23 pp.
70. Pereira de Sousa, F.L., 1919. O Terremoto do 1° de Novembro de 1755 em Portugal e um estudo demográfico, Serviços Geológicos, 4 vols, Lisboa.
71. Penick, J.L., 1981. The New Madrid Earthquakes, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, MO.
72. Peters, K.E. & Herrmann, R.B., eds, 1986. First-hand observations of the Charleston earthquakes of August 31, 1886, and other earthquake materials, South Carolina Geol. Surv. Bull., 41, Columbia, SC.
73. Purdy, G.M., 1975. The eastern end of the Azores-Gibraltar plate boundary, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 43, 973-1000.
74. Rankin, D.W., ed., 1977. Studies Related to the Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquake of 1886-A Preliminary Report, US Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1028, 204 pp.
75. Reid, H.F., 1914. The Lisbon earthquake of November 1, 1755, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 4, 53-80.
76. Richter, C.F., 1958. Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman &Co., San Francisco, CA.
77. Scholz, C.H., 1982. Scaling laws for large earthquakes: Consequences for physical models, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 72, 1-14.
78. Scholz, C.H., 1988. The brittle-plastic transition and the depth of seismic faulting, Geologische Rundschau, 77, 319-328.
79. Scholz, C.H., 1990. The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
80. Seeber, L. & Armbruster, J.G., 1987. The 1886-1889 aftershocks of the Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake: A widespread burst of seismicity, J. geophys. Res., 92, 1663-2696.
81. n phases and the frequency dependence of Q of oceanic lithosphere, J. geophys. Res., 92, 3541-3566.
82. Shedlock, K.M., 1987. Earthquakes recorded by the South Carolina seismic network (1974-1986), US Geol. Surv. Open-File Rpt. 87-437, 92 pp.
83. Sibson, R.H., 1980. Transient discontinuities in ductile shear zones, J. Struct. Geol., 2, 165-171.
84. Sibson, R.H., 1986. Earthquakes and rock deformation in crustal fault zones, An. Rev. Earth planet. Sci., 14, 149-175.
85. Singh, S. & Herrmann, R.B., 1983. Regionalization of crustal coda Q in the continental United States, J. geophys. Res., 88, 527-538.
86. Stearns, R.G. & Wilson, C.W., 1972. Relationship of Earthquakes and Geology in West Tennessee and Adjacent Areas, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN.
87. Stover, C.W & Coffman, J.L., 1993. Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised), US Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1527, 418 pp.
88. Street, R., 1980. A compilation of accounts describing the Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811-1812: Part I, Department of Geology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
89. Street, R., 1982. A contribution to the documentation of the 1811-1812 Mississippi Valley earthquake sequence, Earthq. Notes, 53 (2), 39-52.
90. Street, R., 1984. The Historical Seismicity of the Central United States: 1811-1928, US Geol. Surv. Final Rpt, contract 14-08-0001-21251, Append. A, 316 pp.
91. Street, R. & Nuttli, O., 1984. The central Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811-1812, in Proc. Symp. on 'The New Madrid Seismic Zone', US Geol. Surv. Open-File Rpt 84-770, 33-63.
92. Street, R., Couch, D. & Konkler, J., 1986. The Charleston, Missouri earthquake of October 31, 1895, Earthq. Notes, 57 (2), 41-51.
93. Strehlau, J., 1986. A discussion of the depth extent of rupture in large continental earthqukes, in Proc. 5th Maurice Ewing Symp., Geophys. Monograph 37, pp. 131-145, ed. Das, S., Harriman, NY.
94. Wiens, D. & Stein, S., 1983. Age dependence of oceanic intraplate seismicity and stresses in young oceanic lithosphere, J. geophys. Res., 88, 6455-6468.
95. Woerle, H., 1900. Der Erschutterungsbezirk des grossen Erdbebens zu Lissabon, Inaugural Dissertation, Munich.
96. Youd, T.L. & Perkins, D.M., 1987. Mapping of liquefaction severity index, J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 113, 1374-1392.
97. Youd, T.L., Perkins, D.M. & Turner, W.G., 1989. Liquefaction severity index attenuation for the eastern United States, in Proc. Second US-Japan Workshop on Liquefaction, Large Ground Deformation, and Their Effects on Lifelines, Tech. Rpt NCEER-89-0032, Nat. Ctr. Earthq. Engr. Res., Buffalo, NY, 438-452.
98. Zoback, M.L., 1992. Stress field constraints on intraplate seismicity in eastern North America, J. geophys. Res., 97, 11 761-11 782.