Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70015721

The Richter scale: its development and use for determining earthquake source parameters

Abstract

The M L scale, introduced by Richter in 1935, is the antecedent of every magnitude scale in use today. The scale is defined such that a magnitude-3 earthquake recorded on a Wood-Anderson torsion seismometer at a distance of 100 km would write a record with a peak excursion of 1 mm. To be useful, some means are needed to correct recordings to the standard distance of 100 km. Richter provides a table of correction values, which he terms -log A o , the latest of which is contained in his 1958 textbook. A new analysis of over 9000 readings from almost 1000 earthquakes in the southern California region was recently completed to redetermine the -log A o values. Although some systematic differences were found between this analysis and Richter's values (such that using Richter's values would lead to under and overestimates of M L at distances less than 40 km and greater than 200 km, respectively), the accuracy of his values is remarkable in view of the small number of data used in their determination. Richter's corrections for the distance attenuation of the peak amplitudes on Wood-Anderson seismographs apply only to the southern California region, of course, and should not be used in other areas without first checking to make sure that they are applicable. Often in the past this has not been done, but recently a number of papers have been published determining the corrections for other areas. If there are significant differences in the attenuation within 100 km between regions, then the definition of the magnitude at 100 km could lead to difficulty in comparing the sizes of earthquakes in various parts of the world. To alleviate this, it is proposed that the scale be defined such that a magnitude 3 corresponds to 10 mm of motion at 17 km. This is consistent both with Richter's definition of M L at 100 km and with the newly determined distance corrections in the southern California region. Aside from the obvious (and original) use as a means of cataloguing earthquakes according to size, ML has been used in predictions of ground shaking as a function of distance and magnitude; it has also been used in estimating energy and seismic moment. There is a good correlation of peak ground velocity and the peak motion on a Wood-Anderson instrument at the same location, as well as an observationally defined (and theoretically predicted) nonlinear relation between M L and seismic moment. An important byproduct of the establishment of the M L scale is the continuous operation of the network of Wood-Anderson seismographs on which the scale is based. The records from these instruments can be used to make relative comparisons of amplitudes and waveforms of recent and historic earthquakes; furthermore, because of the moderate gain, the instruments can write onscale records from great earthquakes at teleseismic distances and thus can provide important information about the energy radiated from such earthquakes at frequencies where many instruments have saturated.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.255171979035204° to 38.83606500728993° latitude; -122.78399235916243° to -114.17560393937529° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David M. Boore. 1989. The Richter scale: its development and use for determining earthquake source parameters. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(89)90200-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

GST-1: A high-resolution global sediment thickness model

Global Sediment Thickness 1 (GST-1) is a high-resolution sedimentary thickness model calculated on a 0.125° x 0.125° grid. It modifies the sediment thickness of the 1° x 1° Earth Crustal Model 1 (ECM1) by means of 3D inversions of free air gravity anomalies. GST-1 is calculated by performing structural inversions on high-density contrasts across two crustal boundaries: the sediment – basement interface and the crystalline crust – upper mantle interface. The inversions are calculated in each of ten overlapping 3D models that span the globe. These ten models are merged to obtain the GST-1 global model, providing an eight-fold increase in lateral spatial resolution in comparison with ECM1 and CRUST 1.0. Our sediment thickness model exploits the nearly continuous sampling of gravity data when compared to the irregular, sparse sampling of seismic refraction data. Sediment thickness values in GST-1 are in excellent agreement with independently derived cross sections from well-studied sedimentary basins, and within expected resolution limits of seismic refraction data. GST-1 offers a robust, high resolution global model of sedimentary thickness to support studies of sedimentary basins.

Tectonophysics

Fairweather transform boundary Oligocene to present orogenesis: Fairweather Range vertical extrusion and rotation of the Yakutat microplate at ca. 3 Ma

Oblique-slip along transform fault boundaries is often partitioned between a strike-slip system and thrust faults that accommodate contraction. However, topography along the Yakutat-North American transform (Fairweather fault), is asymmetric with low-terrain above active thrusts on the western, Yakutat side of the transform and high topography on the continental side with peaks >4500 m (Mount Fairweather: 4671 m) to the west of the Border Ranges fault, limited recorded earthquakes >M4, and no apparent reverse faults to generate the highest terrain. In this study we compile, for the first time, published U-Pb zircon, 40 Ar/ 39 Ar and K-Ar (hornblende, muscovite, and biotite) and U-Th/He and fission-track (zircon and apatite) bedrock ages (109) from 75 samples to investigate the exhumation history of the Fairweather Range region, complemented by a published detrital sample (ZFT and AFT) and 13 new 40 Ar/ 39 Ar (hornblende, biotite, and K-feldspar) ages on 9 bedrock samples from both sides of the Fairweather fault. Additionally, we examined published seismicity and geodetic data of the Fairweather region and assessed if plate paleo-vectors correlate with the cooling history of the Fairweather Range. Cooling age, seismic, and block-motion patterns indicate the Fairweather Range has been vertically extruded between the Fairweather and the Border Ranges faults as a coherent block since ca. 25 Ma. The pre-6 Ma Pacific plate motion (N30°W) aligns with the N33°W strike of the Fairweather Fault whereas a hypothetical pre-6 Ma Yakutat microplate paleo-vector of (N39°W) does not: indicating a post-6 Ma timing for Yakutat microplate counter-clockwise rotation (9°). We infer that rotation and impingement of the Yakutat microplate along the Fairweather fault at ca. 3 Ma led to the development of the Fairweather restraining bend and increased cooling rates. The resultant thickened Fairweather welt and the ∼30 km thick southeast end of the Yakutat microplate compounded double-indenter tectonics into Alaska's southeast convergent corner

Tectonophysics

A scaling relationship for the width of secondary deformation around strike-slip faults

Simple mechanical arguments suggest that slip along interlocked, rough faults, damages surrounding rocks. The same arguments require that the scale of secondary damage is proportional to the size of geometric irregularities along the main fault. This relationship could apply at all scales, but has, so far, been difficult to observe at the 10s to 100 s of km scales of large, natural faults, often because large-scale deformation is distributed across wide, complex plate-boundary fault systems, like the San Andreas Fault. The geometry and geology of another large-scale plate-boundary strike slip fault—the Queen Charlotte Fault (QCF)—is, in contrast, especially simple. Here, we show that observations of secondary deformation are well-aligned with predictions of stress variations caused by geometric irregularities along the QCF, suggesting a geometric relationship between primary fault geometry and secondary deformation. The analytic stress solution reveals that the highest stresses and highest likelihood of failure are confined to a zone of influence (ZOI) with a width quantified by ZOI = λ / 2 π "> ZOI=λ/2π , where λ is the wavelength of geometric variations along the main fault. This simple model is consistent with ∼100-km-scale observations along the QCF and can theoretically be used to predict the width of secondary deformation at all scales.

Queen Charlotte Fault