DOCSLIB.ORG

Interview with Charles F. Richter / by Ann Scheid

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHARLES RICHTER (1900-1985) INTERVIEWED BY ANN SCHEID February 15-September 1, 1978 ARCHIVES CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Pasadena, California Subject area Seismology Abstract Interview in 1978 with Charles F. Richter, professor of seismology emeritus, in the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences. A pioneer in seismology and active in the seismology and earthquake engineering fields for over fifty years, Richter’s name is known for the earthquake magnitude scale he developed in the 1930s for local earthquakes. Richter received his PhD from Caltech in 1928. In 1937 he joined the Caltech faculty and worked alongside Harry Wood in the Seismological Laboratory, which that year was transferred to Caltech from the Carnegie Institution of Washington and was situated in the San Rafael area of Pasadena. The interview covers a wide range of topics, including his graduate student years at Caltech, then headed by Robert A. Millikan; recollections of Harry Wood, Beno Gutenberg, and Hugo Benioff and their work in the early years of the Seismological Laboratory; the prospects for earthquake prediction; the role of the Bikini atomic tests in studies of the propagation of seismic waves; the tectonics of Japan; the importance of earthquake engineering; his consulting work with the L.A. Dept. of Water and Power; and his views on latter-day developments in the geology division and at Caltech. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Richter_C Administrative information Access The interview is unrestricted. Copyright Copyright has been assigned to the California Institute of Technology © 1979. All requests for permission to publish or quote from the transcript must be submitted in writing to the University Archivist. Preferred citation Richter, Charles. Interview by Ann Scheid. Pasadena, California, February 15- September 1, 1978. Oral History Project, California Institute of Technology Archives. Retrieved [supply date of retrieval] from the World Wide Web: http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Richter_C Contact information Archives, California Institute of Technology Mail Code 015A-74 Pasadena, CA 91125 Phone: (626)395-2704 Fax: (626)793-8756 Email: [email protected] Graphics and content © California Institute of Technology. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Richter_C Reprinted from BULLETIN OF THE SEISMOLOGICAL SociETY OF AMERICA Vol. 25, No. 1, January, 1935 • AN INSTRU MENTAL EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE SCALE* BY CHARLES F. RICHTER In the course of historical or statistical study of earthquakes in any given region it is frequently desirable to have a scale for rating these shocks in terms of their original energy, independently of the effects which may be produced at any particular point of observation. On the suggestion of Mr. H . 0 . Wood, it is here proposed to refer to such a scale as a "magnitude" scale. This terminology is offered in distinction from the name "intensity" scale, now in general use for such scales as the Rossi-Forel and Mercalli-Cancani scales, which refer primarily to the local intensity of shock manifestation. The writer is not aware of any previous approach to this problem along the course taken in this paper, except for the work of Wadati cited below. Total original energies have been calculated ·for ·a number of shocks, using seis.mometric an'd other data; but such a procedure is prac­ ticable only for a limited number of cases, whereas it is desired to apply a magnitude scale to all or nearly all of the shocks occurrii1g. Mi·. Maxwell vV. Allen states that he has for some time employed an arbitrary scale for rating large earthquakes, based on the amplitudes of earth motion calculated from the. reports of distant stations. This labori­ ous procedure is not far removed in principle from that adopted in the following discussion. Doubtless it has also occunred to others, but has failed of general application because of its paucity of dependable results. In the absence of any accepted magnitude scale, earthquakes have oc­ casionally been compared in terms of the intensity on the Rossi-Forel or some similar scale, as manifested near the epicenter. Even when reliable information is obtainable, this method is obviously exposed to uncertain­ ties arising from variations in the character of the ground, the depth of the focus, and other circumstances not easily allowed for. In a region such as Southern California, where a large proportion of the shocks occur *[Received for publication June 17, 1934.] Charles Richter’s original paper, with signature, from 1935 on the creation of the earthquake magnitude scale that today bears his name. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Richter_C California Institute of Technology Oral History Project Interview with Charles F. Richter by Ann Scheid Pasadena, California Caltech Archives, 1979 Copyright e 1979 by the California Institute of Technology http://resolver.caltech .edu/CaltechO H :0 H_Richter_ C TABLE OF CON~ENTS Interview with Charles F. Richter Session 1 1-36 Family background; emigration from Germany to ~ew York, and eventually to Los Angeles (in 1909); grandfather's business i~ Ohio; attending USC preparatory school; influence of mathe­ matics irJ.structor, Hugh 1Villett; early interest in astronoL'ly (first scientific interest); college--freshman year at USC and transfer to Stanford; return to L.A. and odd jobs for three years. Hearing of Millikan's lect'J.res at ':L'hroop and being attracted to graduate study; studying with Paul Epstein; thesis problem on spinning electron suggested by letter from Ehrenfest to Millikan; Schrodinger; development of quantum Tiechanics; H.P. Robertson; narriage to Lillian Brand; Clinton Judy's informal discussion meetings on literary topics; fellow students (W. Houston, C. Eckart, I. Bowen, C. Millikan); Harry Bateman. Job offer from Seismological Lab and move there (1927); staff at Lab; state of seismology iL ~wenties; international data sharing; ~ong Beach earthquake (1933); support for seismology from insurance companies; ·.1se of portable i~stallations for measuring quakes; 1929 conference to evaluate progress of seis­ mology prograTI; invitation to Beno Gutenberg to join Lab staff; Gutenberg's work; Einstein; develop~ng Richter Magnitude Scale; recent progress on detection of micro-eart~quakes. Session 2 37-73 Great-grandfat~er 1 s political activities in Germany and emigration to New York; grandfather's influence on education; R.C. Tolman; E.T. Bell; Epstein's standards of excellence; H.P. Robertson; caTiping expeditions with Lorquin Natural History Cl·.1b; establishment of Seismological Lab funded by Carnegie Institution; Earry Wood, director of Lab; negative feelings about teaching, especially at first; war work on mathematical problems related to rocket project; subsequent war-related seismology OL geologically active areas in Pacific; change of administration froTI Millikan to DuBridge; problems with student body after war; beginning of interview system for admissions. Gradua~e students in seismology; Balches' donations to Seismology Lab after Caltech took over from Carnegie; contacts with Associates; contacts with press; quality of reporting abou~ earthquakes in popular press; changes in Institute after war; increasing faculty contacts with industry after the war; problems involved with recording atomic bomb tests; repercussions at Caltech of anti-communism of fifties; Lee DuBridge; trip to Japan (1959); exchange of seismographic information with Japanese. http://resolver. caltech. edu/CaltechO H: 0 H_Richter_ C TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Session 3 74-109 Safety of tall buildings; problems of earthquake prediction; Chinese efforts at prediction; prediction by Dr. Whitcomb at Caltech; earthquake swarms as possible prediction tool; triggering earthquakes artificially; characterizing faults worldwide; possibility of setting up instruments in underdeveloped nations; history of government agencies responsible for earthquake measurements--Geological Survey, Weather Bureau, and Coast and Geodetic Survey; role of insurance companies in study of strong motion; Caltech Earthquake Research Associates; attempts of real estate interests to modify earthquake safety regulations. R.C. Tolman; scientific discussions at Faculty Club lunch table; translating paper for von Karman; Beno Gutenberg; Harold Jeffreys; collaborating with Gutenberg on seismic waves and seismicity of the earth; Hugo Benioff. Session 4 110-129 State Geology Board for certifying geologists; consulting work after retirement (Lindvall, Richter and Associates), primarily on safety of dams and reservoirs; Chester Stock and paleontology at Caltech; John Peter Buwalda; anecdote about Harry Bateman; response to changes in Caltech's image as small research institution to more diversified school; addition of economics to humanities division; controversy over admission of women; publishing data on seismic waves caused by bomb tests. Session 5 130-155 Appointment to Seismological Laboratory as research assistant; gathering detailed information about seismic activity of Southern California; Benioff's work on instrumentation; working with Harry Wood; Wood's earlier work in history of California earthquakes; Maxwell Allen; relationship between Carnegie Institution and Seismo­ logical Lab; 1929 conference to evaluate Lab's progress; Wood's modification of Mercalli intensity scale; collecting data to make it possible to locate earthquake epicenters; Wood and Anderson collaboration on torsion seismometer; effect of Long Beach earthquake on Seismo Lab's activities; trip
Recommended publications
  • Energy and Magnitude: a Historical Perspective

    Energy and Magnitude: a Historical Perspective

    Pure Appl. Geophys. 176 (2019), 3815–3849 Ó 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-018-1994-7 Pure and Applied Geophysics Energy and Magnitude: A Historical Perspective 1 EMILE A. OKAL Abstract—We present a detailed historical review of early referred to as ‘‘Gutenberg [and Richter]’s energy– attempts to quantify seismic sources through a measure of the magnitude relation’’ features a slope of 1.5 which is energy radiated into seismic waves, in connection with the parallel development of the concept of magnitude. In particular, we explore not predicted a priori by simple physical arguments. the derivation of the widely quoted ‘‘Gutenberg–Richter energy– We will use Gutenberg and Richter’s (1956a) nota- magnitude relationship’’ tion, Q [their Eq. (16) p. 133], for the slope of log10 E versus magnitude [1.5 in (1)]. log10 E ¼ 1:5Ms þ 11:8 ð1Þ We are motivated by the fact that Eq. (1)istobe (E in ergs), and especially the origin of the value 1.5 for the slope. found nowhere in this exact form in any of the tra- By examining all of the relevant papers by Gutenberg and Richter, we note that estimates of this slope kept decreasing for more than ditional references in its support, which incidentally 20 years before Gutenberg’s sudden death, and that the value 1.5 were most probably copied from one referring pub- was obtained through the complex computation of an estimate of lication to the next. They consist of Gutenberg and the energy flux above the hypocenter, based on a number of assumptions and models lacking robustness in the context of Richter (1954)(Seismicity of the Earth), Gutenberg modern seismological theory.
  • Beno Gutenberg

    Beno Gutenberg

    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES B E N O G U T E N B ER G 1889—1960 A Biographical Memoir by L E O N KNOP OFF Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1999 NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS WASHINGTON D.C. Courtesy of the California Institute of Technology Archives, Pasadena BENO GUTENBERG June 4, 1889–January 25, 1960 BY LEON KNOPOFF ENO GUTENBERG WAS THE foremost observational seismolo- Bgist of the twentieth century. He combined exquisite analysis of seismic records with powerful analytical, inter- pretive, and modeling skills to contribute many important discoveries of the structure of the solid Earth and its atmo- sphere. Perhaps his best known contribution was the pre- cise location of the core of the Earth and the identification of its elastic properties. Other major contributions include the travel-time curves; the discovery of very long-period seis- mic waves with large amplitudes that circle the Earth; the identification of differences in crustal structure between continents and oceans, including the discovery of a signifi- cantly thin crust in the Pacific; the discovery of a low-veloc- ity layer in the mantle (which he interpreted as the zone of decoupling of horizontal motions of the surficial parts from the deeper parts of the Earth); the creation of the magni- tude scale for earthquakes; the relation between magnitudes and energies for earthquakes; the famous universal magni- tude-frequency relation for earthquake distributions; the first density distribution for the mantle; the study of the tem- perature distribution in the Earth; the understanding of microseisms; and the structure of the atmosphere.
  • Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas

    Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas

    Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas Development: A Primer on Technical and Regulatory Considerations Informing Risk Management and Mitigation Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas Development: A Primer on Technical and Regulatory Considerations Informing Risk Management and Mitigation Second Edition, 2017 Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas Development: A Primer on Technical and Regulatory Considerations Informing Risk Management and Mitigation This report is developed by the StatesFirst Induced Seismicity by Injection Work Group (ISWG) members (the State agencies) with input and support from the ISWG technical advisors (subject matter experts from academia, industry, federal agencies, and environmental organizations) to help better inform all stakeholders and the public on technical and regulatory considerations associated with evaluation and response, seismic monitoring systems, information sharing, and the use of ground motion metrics. It also is intended to summarize the range of approaches that have been used or are currently being used by states to manage and mitigate the risks associated with seismicity that may be induced by injection. StatesFirst is an initiative of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the Ground Water Protection Council. Disclaimer This is an informational document, and is not intended to offer recommended rules or regulations. The ISWG recognizes that management and mitigation of the risks associated with induced
  • 1. Introduction

    1. Introduction

    EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE, INTENSITY, ENERGY, POWER LAW RELATIONS AND SOURCE MECHANISM J.R. Kayal Geological Survey of India, 27, J.L. Nehru Road Road, Kolkata – 700 016 email : [email protected] EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE Magnitude is one of the basic and important parameters of an earthquake. It defines the size of an earthquake. The beginners of seismology are, in general, confused about different scales of magnitude, and sometimes they mix-up earthquake intensity with its magnitude. Journalists often report the magnitude value of an earthquake as its intensity; this is wrong. There are now different magnitude scales to define the size of an earthquake. After Richter (1935), various magnitude scales are proposed; all these scales are discussed below. Richter Magnitude (or Local Magnitude) ML Richter (1935) defined the local magnitude ML of an earthquake observed at a station to be ML = log A - log Ao ( ∆) (1) where A is the maximum amplitude in millimetres recorded on the Wood- Anderson seismograph for an earthquake at epicentral distance of ∆ km, and Ao (∆ ) is the maximum amplitude at ∆ km for a standard earthquake. The local magnitude is thus a number characteristic of the earthquake, and independent of the location of the recording station. Three arbitrary choices are made in the above definition: (i) the use of standard Wood-Anderson seismograph, (ii) the use of common logarithms to the base 10, and (iii) selection of the standard earthquake whose amplitudes as a function of distance are represented by Ao (∆). The zero level of Ao (∆) can be fixed by choosing its value at a particular distance. Richter chose the zero level of Ao (∆) to be 1 µm (or 0.001 mm) at a distance of 100 km from the earthquake epicentre.
  • Potential Induced Seismicity Guide a Resource of Technical & Regulatory Considerations Associated with Fluid Injection

    Potential Induced Seismicity Guide a Resource of Technical & Regulatory Considerations Associated with Fluid Injection

    2021 UPDATE Potential Induced Seismicity Guide A Resource of Technical & Regulatory Considerations Associated with Fluid Injection Potential Induced Seismicity Guide: A Resource of Technical and Regulatory Considerations Associated with Fluid Injection Disclaimer This is an informational document and is not intended to offer recommended rules or regulations. The Induced Seismicity Workgroup (ISWG), an effort of the State Oil and Gas Regulatory Exchange (Exchange) recognizes that management and mitigation of the risks associated with induced seismicity are best considered at the state level with specific considerations at local, regional, or cross-state levels, due to significant variability in local geology and surface conditions (e.g., population, building conditions, infrastructure, critical facilities, seismic monitoring capabilities, etc.). Neither the State Oil and Gas Regulatory Exchange (Exchange), nor the ISWG, nor any person acting on their behalf makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any third party’s use or reliance on any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed; or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favor by the Exchange, the ISWG nor any person acting on their behalf. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Exchange, or the ISWG. Recommended Citation Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Potential Induced Seismicity Guide: A Resource of Technical and Regulatory Considerations Associated with Fluid Injection, March 2021, 250 pages.
  • Seismicity in the Pannonian Region – Earthquake Data

    Seismicity in the Pannonian Region – Earthquake Data

    EGU Stephan Mueller Special Publication Series, 3, 9–28, 2002 c European Geosciences Union 2002 Seismicity in the Pannonian Region – earthquake data L. Toth,´ P. Monus,´ T. Zs´ıros, and M. Kiszely Seismological Observatory, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Meredek u. 18, H-1112 Budapest, Hungary Received: 2 May 2000 – Accepted: 16 July 2001 Abstract. A comprehensive earthquake catalogue has local scale is a more complicated task and should be per- been compiled, listing historical and instrumentally recorded formed with great care. Not only because almost 10% of all earthquakes throughout the Pannonian Region bounded by earthquakes occur within plate interiors globally, but also as 44.0–50.0 N latitude and 13.0–28.0 E longitude. The cata- plates continue to move, plate boundaries change over geo- logue contains more than 20 000 events ranging in date from logic time and weakened boundary regions become part of 456 AD to 1998 and is considered to be complete for earth- the interiors of the plates. These zones of weakness within quakes larger than M 6.4 since 1500, for earthquakes larger the continents can cause earthquakes, either in response to than M 4.7 since 1800 and for magnitudes greater than 3.5 stresses that originate at the edges of the plate or in response since 1880. In combination with the stress data derived from to local gravitational stresses. 190 focal mechanism solutions for individual earthquakes Nevertheless, the study of the recent tectonics requires in- these data provide a relatively strong basis for evaluating put data from the seismic activity of the area: if existing seismic sources and seismotectonic models both within and tectonic features are active in the present, or were active in surrounding the Pannonian Basin.
  • EG0800378 the Role of Tectonic and Seismicity in Siting of Nuclear Power Plant M.A.H

    EG0800378 the Role of Tectonic and Seismicity in Siting of Nuclear Power Plant M.A.H

    EG0800378 The Role of Tectonic and Seismicity in Siting of Nuclear Power Plant M.A.H. Abdel Aziz Siting and Environmental Department, National Center for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Control ABSTRACT The site selection for the a nuclear power plant (NPP) is controlled by many criteria. One of the most important criterion is the tectonic and seismicity of the site and its surroundings. Since, it is preferable the site in concern is characterized by low tectonic and low seismicity to avoid the damage effects associated with the occurrence of destructive earthquakes. The investigation of the tectonic and seismicity maps of egypt has been carried out to candidate potential areas or sites for nuclear power plant installation from seismicity point of view. Also, the design basis ground motion in terms of peak ground acceleration and response spectra of some of the potential sites are defined through the conduct of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis The study revealed that although there is no criterion to exclude areas of high tectonic and high seismicity as potential sites for nuclear power plant installation but, it is preferable avoiding such areas. This is attributed to the critical seismic curve that characterizes such areas and is required high seismic design levels to resist the destructive vibratory ground motion associated with the expected earthquake. Cosequently, the required high seismic design levels will have a negative impact on the economic cost of the facility compared with that built in low and moderate seismic areas. Hence, areas like the gulf of suez, the norhern part of the Red Sea and the southern part of Sinai Peninsula should be avoided as potential sites for NPP from the tectonic and seismicity point of view.