New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Philippines earthquake is massive, but it could’ve been bigger—here’s why

The magnitude 7.8 earthquake that hit the Philippines happened at a subduction zone. Such places are capable of producing the largest earthquakes possible

Several people on a motorcycle in front of a large building that has sunk down at a weird angle and shows lots of damage.

Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A magnitude 7.8 earthquake that struck offshore of Mindanao, the second largest island in the Philippines, at 7:37 A.M. local time is the largest earthquake to hit anywhere in the world so far this year, according to U.S. Geological Survey records. But the temblor, which has killed at least 35 individuals and injured scores of people, was actually on the smaller side for the type of fault it occurred at, seismologist Lucy Jones says.

An earthquake’s size is determined by the area of the fault rupture—the larger the area, the larger the quake. The highest magnitudes only happen at plate boundaries, Jones says, “because that’s the only place you have a big enough fault.” For context, there is around one earthquake of magnitude 8.0 or higher somewhere in the world and some dozen in the range of magnitude 7.0 to 7.9 each year on average; this year there have been six of the latter so far.

Subduction zones—places where one plate is diving below another—are where the very largest quakes occur because the fault dips down at a shallow angle, creating a larger area of slip, Jones explains. In comparison, though the strike-slip faults of California can produce a magnitude 8.0 or higher earthquake, the faults there go straight down and quickly hit hotter rocks below, halting the movement and constraining the quake.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A set of concentric circles cropped within a rectangular frame are scaled to show the amplitude of earthquakes measuring 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 on the Richter scale. Each whole number increase corresponds to a 10-fold increase in amplitude. A second set of concentric circles cropped within a rectangular frame are scaled to show the energy released by earthquakes measuring 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 on the Richter scale. Each whole number increase corresponds to a 32-fold increase in energy.

Amanda Montañez

Some subduction zones, such as one off Chile, can create the largest earthquakes ever measured because they have younger rocks that dip at a particularly shallow angle. But in the part of the Philippines where the recent temblor occurred, the rock is older and colder, so the area that slipped wasn’t as large as it might have been.

This area is “a bit of a mess” in that it’s a jumble of pieces of tectonic plate, Jones says, meaning there isn’t as clean of a line of fault to slip, “and therefore you don’t have a big a piece that can move at once.” As a result, you get a somewhat smaller quake. Monday’s earthquake does, however, appear to be among the largest on record for the Cotabato Trench, according to seismologists Judith Hubbard and Kyle Bradley.

There are reports that the Philippines quake caused considerable damage, including to buildings. About one million people experienced severe (intensity VIII) shaking—the third highest ranking on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale—and the quake caused a landslide that resulted in most of the related deaths.

And because the fault is a subduction zone and is underwater, it displaces water, which causes tsunamis. In this case, the largest tsunami wave measured was about one meter—considerably smaller than the nearly 40-meter tsunami that was generated by the 2011 Tohoku quake in Japan.

Andrea Thompson is senior editor for Earth and environment at Scientific American, covering the environment, energy and Earth sciences. She has been covering these topics for nearly two decades. Prior to joining Scientific American, she was a senior writer covering climate science at Climate Central and a reporter and editor at Live Science, where she primarily covered earth science and the environment. She has moderated panels, including as part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Media Zone, and appeared in radio and television interviews on major networks. She holds a graduate degree in science, health and environmental reporting from New York University, as well as a B.S. and an M.S. in atmospheric chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Follow Thompson on Bluesky @andreatweather.bsky.social

More by Andrea Thompson

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe