Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70215412

Where was the 31 October 1895, Charleston, Missouri Earthquake?

Abstract

We revisit the magnitude and location of the 31 October 1895 Charleston, Missouri earthquake, which is widely regarded to be the last M W 6 or greater earthquake in the central United States. Although a recent study (Bakun et al., 2003) concluded that this earthquake was located in southern Illinois, over 100 km north of the traditionally inferred location near Charleston, Missouri, our analysis of exhaustively compiled macroseismic data supports the traditionally inferred location, with a preferred magnitude of M W ≈ 5.8, and preferred range of 5.4 to 6.1. Our preferred magnitude is derived from comparisons with intensity distributions from the 1925 M W = 6.2 Charlevoix, the 1944 M W = 5.8 Massena, and the 1968 M W = 5.3 southern Illinois earthquakes, which we also revisited in this study. Based on the distribution of liquefaction, reports of damage, and early aftershocks, we also explore possible rupture scenarios for the 1895 earthquake. Our preferred scenario involves unilateral rupture to the northeast on a (reactivated) northeast-striking fault (or faults) coinciding with structures associated with the western limb of the Reelfoot Rift, with an epicenter south-southeast of Charleston, Missouri. Our results support the conclusion that, within the Reelfoot Rift, elevated seismic hazard is not restricted to the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) as conventionally defined but continues into the Charleston region in southeastern Missouri where faults associated with the western edge of the Reelfoot Rift appear favorably oriented for failure in the current stress regime.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 36.45884507478879° to 37.142803443716836° latitude; -89.637451171875° to -89.07714843749999° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stacey S. Martin, Susan E. Hough. 2019-05-21. Where was the 31 October 1895, Charleston, Missouri Earthquake?. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180328

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↗