Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by RICHTER, C. F. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Seismic regionalization

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

Abstract

In the USSR earthquake risk is now officially mapped by division into areas numbered with the degrees of the Modified Mercalli intensity scale, to show maximum reasonably expectable intensity during future earthquakes on ground of the prevailing character. This paper presents and discusses maps on the same plan for the Los Angeles Basin and its vicinity, for California, and for the United States.

The effect of variation of ground from point to point can be shown only on a large scale. This is microregionalization; the map for the Los Angeles Basin is an example. Small-scale regionalization maps require generalization. Prevailing ground is selected, not strictly by percentage of area, but by considering the foundation likely to be used for construction, in mountainous areas mostly small alluvial patches less stable than the surrounding rock.

Regionalization and especially microregionalization can be used in construction and planning, as indicating maximum effects to be considered in designing permanent structures. In adjusting insurance rates, and in designing temporary structures, statistical frequency of occurrence is also involved.

Over small areas, regionalization depends largely on local variation of ground and geology; over large areas, distance from active faults must be considered. Attention should be given to the effect of structural trends and of wave path on the form of isoseismal curves.

Mapping for the Los Angeles Basin area is reasonably definite. That for California is fairly reliable, but less so in desert and mountain areas. That for the United States is in part highly speculative and subject to substantial change.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. R. ALLEN Charles F. Richter: A personal tribute Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1987; 77(6): 2234 - 2237. [PDF]

				B. F. HOWELL Jr. Seismic regionalization in North America based on Average Regional Seismic Hazard Index Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1974; 64(5): 1509 - 1528. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. L. KAILA and H. NARAIN A new approach for preparation of quantitative seismicity maps as applied to Alpide Belt-Sunda Arc and adjoining areas Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1971; 61(5): 1275 - 1291. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. G. MILNE and A. G. DAVENPORT Distribution of earthquake risk in Canada Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1969; 59(2): 729 - 754. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. A. CORNELL Engineering seismic risk analysis Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1968; 58(5): 1583 - 1606. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. L. COOK and R. B. SMITH Seismicity in Utah, 1850 through June 1965 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1967; 57(4): 689 - 718. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. R. ALLEN, P. ST. AMAND, C. F. RICHTER, and J. M. NORDQUIST Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in the Southern California region Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1965; 55(4): 753 - 797. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. W. POMEROY and G. H. SUTTON The use of galvanometers as band-rejection filters in electromagnetic seismographs Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, January 1, 1960; 50(1): 135 - 151. [Abstract] [PDF]