Receiver Function Analysis
Also known as: RF
Receiver Function (RF) analysis is a seismic method that isolates P-to-S wave conversions at crustal and mantle discontinuities using teleseismic records from distant earthquakes. Introduced by Langston in 1979, RF analysis provides a cost-effective way to determine crustal thickness, Poisson's ratio, and upper mantle structure without requiring active seismic sources, making it a workhorse technique in crustal and lithospheric studies.
Key highlights
- Passive method: uses naturally occurring teleseismic waves, requiring no active source and enabling application in remote areas
- Cost-effective: deployments of broadband seismometers are much cheaper than active-source experiments
- Directly sensitive to interfaces (Moho) that produce impedance contrasts and S-wave generation
- Provides VP/VS ratio, a sensitive indicator of rock composition and fluid content
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use RF analysis for rapid assessment of crustal thickness and composition across a region using sparse broadband seismometer networks. RF is ideal for continental crust studies and lithospheric imaging. For detailed imaging of fine-scale structure or within sedimentary sequences, active-source methods (refraction, reflection) or FWI are more appropriate. Combine RF with gravity and magnetic data for multi-parameter constraints.
Strengths & limitations
- Passive method: uses naturally occurring teleseismic waves, requiring no active source and enabling application in remote areas
- Cost-effective: deployments of broadband seismometers are much cheaper than active-source experiments
- Directly sensitive to interfaces (Moho) that produce impedance contrasts and S-wave generation
- Provides VP/VS ratio, a sensitive indicator of rock composition and fluid content
- Limited depth control; receiver functions are insensitive to velocity gradients between strong interfaces, limiting vertical resolution
- Trade-off between depth and thickness: thin layers produce similar receiver functions to thick layers with slightly different velocity
- Horizontal heterogeneity (lateral variations) can bias 1D inversion results; dipping interfaces or lateral velocity variations scatter energy
- Requires high-quality broadband seismometer data; noise and instrument problems degrade signal and introduce artifacts
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
What is the Moho and why is receiver function analysis good for detecting it?
The Moho is the boundary between crust and upper mantle, marked by a sharp increase in seismic velocity and density. Receiver functions are sensitive to P-to-S conversions at velocity discontinuities. The Moho produces a strong converted phase because the velocity contrast is large (~0.8 km/s). By stacking many RFs, the Moho reflection becomes clear.
What is the difference between P-to-S and P-to-SH receiver functions?
P-to-S (radial component RF) is sensitive to vertical P-to-S conversions at horizontal interfaces. P-to-SH (transverse component RF) is sensitive to P-to-SH conversions from dipping interfaces. For a horizontally layered crust, the radial RF dominates. Transverse RF is used to detect dipping structures and to assess isotropy.
How does the epicentral distance of the earthquake affect receiver functions?
Teleseismic P waves at epicentral distances >30 degrees are nearly vertical. This near-vertical incidence is essential for sensitivity to vertical structure. At smaller distances (<30 degrees), rays are more steeply incident and more sensitive to lateral heterogeneity. At very large distances (>100 degrees), multiple reflections contaminate the signal.
Can receiver function analysis be combined with other seismic methods?
Yes. Joint inversion combining RF with surface wave dispersion curves (from ambient noise or earthquake-generated Rayleigh waves) improves depth resolution and reduces non-uniqueness. RF-gravity joint inversion further constrains density structure. Multi-method combinations are increasingly standard in modern crustal studies.
Sources
- 1.Langston, C. A. (1979). Structure under Mount Rainier, Washington, inferred from teleseismic body waves. Journal of Geophysical Research, 84(B9), 4749-4762.
- 2.Ammon, C. J., Randall, G. E., & Zandt, G. (1990). On the nonlinear absolute amplitude calibration of a broadband seismometer: Theory and application to SRO and ASRO data. Seismological Research Letters, 61(2), 72-86.
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Receiver Function Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/geophysics/receiver-function-analysis