Estimating earthquake magnitudes from reported intensities in the central and eastern United States

A new macroseismic intensity prediction equation is derived for the central and eastern United States and is used to estimate the magnitudes of the 1811–1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquakes. This work improves upon previous derivations of intensity prediction equations by including additional intensity data, correcting magnitudes in the intensity datasets to moment magnitude, and accounting for the spatial and temporal population distributions. The new relation leads to moment magnitude estimates for the New Madrid earthquakes that are toward the lower range of previous studies. Depending on the intensity dataset to which the new macroseismic intensity prediction equation is applied, mean estimates for the 16 December 1811, 23 January 1812, and 7 February 1812 mainshocks, and 16 December 1811 dawn aftershock range from 6.9 to 7.1, 6.8 to 7.1, 7.3 to 7.6, and 6.3 to 6.5, respectively. One‐sigma uncertainties on any given estimate could be as high as 0.3–0.4 magnitude units. We also estimate a magnitude of 6.9±0.3 for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. We find a greater range of magnitude estimates when also accounting for multiple macroseismic intensity prediction equations. The inability to accurately and precisely ascertain magnitude from intensities increases the uncertainty of the central United States earthquake hazard by nearly a factor of two. Relative to the 2008 national seismic hazard maps, our range of possible 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquake magnitudes increases the coefficient of variation of seismic hazard estimates for Memphis, Tennessee, by 35%–42% for ground motions expected to be exceeded with a 2% probability in 50 years and by 27%–35% for ground motions expected to be exceeded with a 10% probability in 50 years.

[1]  Vít Kárník,et al.  Seismicity of the European area , 1971 .

[2]  O. Nuttli,et al.  The Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811 and 1812: Intesities, ground motion and magnitudes , 1973, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[3]  J. Evernden.  Seismic intensities, “size” of earthquakes and related parameters , 1975, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[4]  T. Toppozada.  Earthquake magnitude as a function of intensity data in California and Western Nevada , 1975 .

[5]  R. Street.  A Contribution to the Documentation of the 1811–1812 Mississippi Valley Earthquake Sequence , 1982 .

[6]  A. Bent.  A re-examination of the 1925 Charlevoix, Québec, earthquake , 1992 .

[7]  C. W. Stover,et al.  Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised) , 1993 .

[8]  A. Bent.  A complex double-couple source mechanism for the Ms 7.2 1929 Grand Banks earthquake , 1995 .

[9]  Eugene S. Schweig,et al.  THE -ENIGMA OF THE NEW MADRID EARTHQUAKES OF 1811-1812 , 1996 .

[10]  A. Johnston.  Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions—III. New Madrid 1811–1812, Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755 , 1996 .

[11]  Kuo-Liang Wen,et al.  Nonlinear Soil Response a Reality? , 2022 .

[12]  W. H. Bakun,et al.  Estimating earthquake location and magnitude from seismic intensity data , 1997, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[13]  D. Wald,et al.  Utilization of the Internet for rapid community intensity maps , 1999 .

[14]  S. Hough,et al.  On the Modified Mercalli intensities and magnitudes of the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes , 2000 .

[15]  Chris H. Cramer,et al.  A seismic hazard uncertainty analysis for the New Madrid seismic zone , 2001 .

[16]  S. Hough,et al.  Magnitude Estimates of Two Large Aftershocks of the 16 December 1811 New Madrid Earthquake , 2002 .

[17]  Robert H. Lafferty,et al.  The Earthquake Potential of the New Madrid Seismic Zone , 2002 .

[18]  D. Wald,et al.  Intensity distribution and isoseismal maps for the Nisqually, Washington, earthquake of 28 February 2001 , 2002 .

[19]  A. Johnston,et al.  Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI) for large earthquakes near New Madrid, Missouri, in 1811-1812 and near Charleston, South Carolina, in 1886 , 2002 .

[20]  J. B. Harris,et al.  Preliminary Paleoseismic and Geophysical Investigation of the North Farrenburg Lineament: Primary Tectonic Deformation Associated with the New Madrid North Fault? , 2002 .

[21]  Empirical modified Mercalli intensity site corrections for towns in eastern North America , 2003 .

[22]  W. H. Bakun,et al.  Estimating Locations and Magnitudes of Earthquakes in Eastern North America from Modified Mercalli Intensities , 2003 .

[23]  Susan E. Hough,et al.  Analysing the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes with recent instrumentally recorded aftershocks , 2004, Nature.

[24]  W. H. Bakun,et al.  Magnitudes and Locations of the 1811–1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquakes , 2004 .

[25]  S. Hough,et al.  Wagon Loads of Sand Blows in White County, Illinois , 2005 .

[26]  O. Scotti,et al.  Regional intensity attenuation models for France and the estimation of magnitude and location of historical earthquakes , 2006 .

[27]  D. Wald,et al.  Review Article Topographic Slope as a Proxy for Seismic Site Conditions and Amplification , 2007 .

[28]  G. Atkinson,et al.  “Did You Feel It?” Intensity Data: A Surprisingly Good Measure of Earthquake Ground Motion , 2007 .

[29]  W. Szeliga,et al.  Intensity, magnitude, location and attenuation in India for felt earthquakes since 1762 , 2010 .

[30]  Charles S. Mueller,et al.  Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps , 2008 .

[31]  A. Shumway.  Focal Mechanisms in the Northeast New Madrid Seismic Zone , 2008 .

[32]  Dietrich Stromeyer,et al.  Attenuation Relationship of Macroseismic Intensities in Central Europe , 2009 .

[33]  D. Bindi,et al.  Intensity prediction equations for Central Asia , 2011 .

[34]  Susan E. Hough,et al.  Toward a consistent model for strain accrual and release for the New Madrid Seismic Zone, central United States , 2011 .

[35]  S. Hough.  Spatial Variability of “Did You Feel It?” Intensity Data: Insights into Sampling Biases in Historical Earthquake Intensity Distributions , 2013 .