Earth, Planets and Space

, Volume 53, Issue 12, pp 1171–1176 | Cite as

Rupture directivity and source-process time of the September 20, 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake estimated from Rayleigh-wave phase velocity

Open Access


Rayleigh-wave phase-delay differences between the main shock and its aftershocks, regarded as source duration varying with azimuth, at period range of 60 ∼ 120 seconds, were used to rapidly determine the rupture directivity and the source-process time of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Results show that the earthquake faulting exhibits an obvious directivity with an optimal rupture azimuth of about 42° in the northeast direction. The earthquake has an average source-process time at 40.6 ± 0.5 sec and a rupture length of 77.0 ± 3.6 km during rupture. In addition, periods at nodes of amplitude spectra of the main shock were adopted to estimate the rupture time, to be about 34.0 ± 0.7 sec; the rise time of 6.7 ± 0.6 sec, and a slightly slow rupture velocity, 2.27 ± 0.15 km/sec, were also obtained. According to Savage’s suggestion, the rupture width of the fault was estimated to be 30.5 ± 4.5 km. Relying on these estimated faults parameters, we calculate the average static stress drop of about 56 bars, lying in between the stress drop of interplate earthquakes and intraplate earthquakes. We also infer the average dynamic stress drop of 52 bars based on Brune’s theory. By the comparison of the two stress-drops, an Orowan’s stress model or a stress model of frictional overshot is probably appropriate to describe the rupture behavior of the earthquake. The radiated seismic energy, then, was estimated at about 1.9 × 1023 ergs, about 16 times larger than the value reported by the USGS.


Main Shock Stress Drop Rupture Velocity Rupture Time Rupture Length 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aki, K., Generation and propagation of G waves from the Niigata earthquake of June 16, 1964, 2, Estimation of earthquake moment, released energy, and stress-strain drop from the G wave spectrum, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ., 44, 73–88, 1966.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Menahem, A., Radiation of seismic surface-waves from finite moving sources, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 51, 401–435, 1961.Google Scholar
  3. Brune, J. N., Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear wave from earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 75, 4997–5009, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Filson, J. and T. V. McEvilly, Love spectra and the mechanism of the 1966 Parkfield sequence, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 57, 1245–1257, 1967.Google Scholar
  5. Geller, R. J., Scaling relations for earthquake source parameters and magnitudes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 66, 1501–1523, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Gibowicz, S. J., Physics of fracturing and seismic energy release: A review, PAGEOPH, 124, 611–658, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huang, B.-S., Two-dimensional reconstruction of the surface group motions of an earthquake: the September 21, 1999, Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake, Geohpys. Res. Lett., 27, 3025–3028, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huang, M.-W. and J.-H. Wang, Scaling of power spectra of near-field seismograms of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2001 (submitted).Google Scholar
  9. Huang, B.S., K.-C. Chen, W.-G. Huang, J.-H. Wang, T.-M. Chang, R.-D. Hwang, H.-C. Chiu, and C.-C. Tsai, Characteristics of strong ground motion across a thrust fault tip from the September 21, 1999, Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2729–2732, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ji, C, D. V. Helmberger, T.-R. A. Song, K-.F. Ma, and D.J. Wald, The 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake: A massive wedge shaped heave, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2001 (submitted).Google Scholar
  11. Kanamori, H., Mechanics of earthquakes, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 22, 207–237, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kanamori, H. and D. L. Anderson, Theoretical basis of some empirical relation in seismology, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 65, 1073–1095, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. Kanamori, H. and T. H. Heaton, Microscopic and macroscopic physics of earthquakes, in GeoComplexity and the Physics of Earthquakes, edited by J. B. Rundle et al, 296 pp., Geophysical Monograph Series, AGU, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. Kao, H. and W.-P. Chen, The Chi-Chi earthquake sequence: Active, out-of-sequence thrust faulting in Taiwan, Science, 288, 2346–2349, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, S.-J. and K.-F. Ma, Rupture process of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake from the inversion of teleseismic data, TAO, 3, 591–608, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. Ma, K.-F., C.-T. Lee, Y.-B. Tsai, T.-C. Shin, and J. Mori, The Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake: Large surface displacements on an inland thrust fault, EOS Trans. American Geophysical Union, 80, 605–611, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ma, K.-F., T.-R. A. Song, S.-J. Lee, and H.-I. Wu, Spatial slip distribution of the September 20, 1999, Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake (Mw 7.6)— Inverted from telesemic data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 3417–3420, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mori, J., K.-F. Ma, and T.-R. A. Song, Dynamic stress drop estimates for the 1999 Chi-Chi Taiwan earthquake: Indications of low dynamic friction, EOS Trans. American Geophysical Union 2000 WPGM, 81, 140, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. Orowan, E., Mechanism of seismic faulting, Geol. Soc. Am. Mem., 79, 323–345, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Press, F., A. Ben-Menahem, and M. N. Toksoz, Experimental determination of earthquake fault length and rupture velocity, J. Geophys. Res., 66, 3471–3485, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Savage, J. C, Relation of corner frequency to fault dimension, J. Geophys. Res., 77, 3788–3795, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vassiliou, M. S. and H. Kanamori, The energy release in earthquakes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 72, 371–387, 1982.Google Scholar
  23. Velasco, A. A., C. J. Ammon, T. Lay, and J. Zhang, Imaging a slow bilateral rupture with broadband seismic waves: The September 2, 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 2629–2632, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang, C. Y, Wave theory for seismogram synthesis, 235 pp., Ph.D. Dissertation, Saint Louis University, 1981.Google Scholar
  25. Wang, J.-H., R.-D. Hwang, K.-C. Chen, B.-S. Huang, C.-H. Chiu, C.-C. Tsai, W.-G. Huang, and T.-M. Chang, The Ms 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake of September 20, 1999, Proceed. Int. Workshop on Seismotectonics at the Subduction Zone, Tsukuba, Japan, 351–360, 2000.Google Scholar
  26. Yagi, Y. and M. Kikuchi, Spatiotemporal distribution of source rupture process for 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake. Posted on, 2001.
  27. Yu, G. K. and B. J. Mitchell, Regionalized shear velocity models of the Pacific upper mantle from observed Love and Rayleigh wave dispersion, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 57, 311–341, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Geomagnetism and Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences (SGEPSS); The Seismological Society of Japan; The Volcanological Society of Japan; The Geodetic Society of Japan; The Japanese Society for Planetary Sciences. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of GeophysicsNational Central UniversityChung-LiTaiwan
  2. 2.Institute of Earth SciencesAcademia SinicaNankang, TaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations