Auxiliary material for paper 2011GL047065

Coseismic slip distribution of the February 27, 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile 
earthquake

Fred F. Pollitz 
U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA

Ben Brooks 
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

Xiaopeng Tong 
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 
La Jolla, California, USA

Michael G. Bevis 
School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

James H. Foster 
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

Roland Burgmann 
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, 
Berkeley, California, USA

Robert Smalley 
Center for Earthquake Research and Information, University of Memphis, 
Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Christophe Vigny 
Laboratoire de Geologie de l'Ecole Normale Superieure, UMR 8538, CNRS, 
Paris, France

Anne Socquet and Jean-Claude Ruegg 
Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, UMR 7154, Universite Paris-Diderot, 
CNRS, Paris, France

Jaime Campos and Sergio Barriento 
Departmento de Geofisica, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Hector Parra 
Departamento de Geodesia, Instituto Geografico Militar Chile, Santiago, Chile

Juan Carlos Baez Soto 
Departamento de Ciencias Geodesicas y Geomatica, Universidad de Concepcion, 
Concepcion, Chile

Sergio Cimbaro 
Departamento de Geodesia, Instituto Geografico Nacional Argentina, 
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Mauro Blanco
Instituto CEDIAC, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina



Pollitz, F. F., et al. (2011), Coseismic slip distribution of the February 27, 
2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L09309, 
doi:10.1029/2011GL047065.

Introduction

This auxiliary material contains six figures and a table.

1. 2011gl047065-fs01.eps 
Figure S1. Examples of estimation of coseismic offsets at three GPS sites 
(inset). We estimate simultaneously a pre-earthquake linear rate using data 
extending back to 2007, a coseismic offset, and a post-earthquake linear rate 
using data from 1 to 6 days after the earthquake.

2. 2011gl047065-fs02.eps  
Figure S2. (Center) Observed line of sight (LOS) displacement of selected points 
of unwrapped interferograms, shown separately for sets of ascending and 
descending orbit interferograms. (Left) Corresponding predictions derived from 
the coseismic slip model. (Right) Residual LOS displacement.  Acquisition times 
after the 2010 earthquake range from 3/1/2010 to 5/11/2010 (Table S2 of Tong et 
al., 2010).

3. 2011gl047065-fs03.eps  
Figure S3. Root-mean-square misfit of contributing datasets and seismic moment 
as a function of fault dip. Filled circles denote the preferred results at delta 
= 18 deg.

4. 2011gl047065-fs04.eps  
Figure S4. Resolution of slip. a) and c) are the input structures, which are 
used to construct synthetic datasets using the same configuration of InSAR and 
GPS data as in the inversions with real data. b) and d) are the corresponding 
inverted slip distributions. 

5. 2011gl047065-fs05.eps  
Figure S5. Coseismic slip model obtained by the joint InSAR / GPS inversion on a 
homogeneous sphere with Poisson's ratio=0.25. Contour interval is 3 m.  Star 
symbol indicates the Global CMT epicenter.

6. 2011gl047065-fs06.eps  
Figure S6. Observed coseismic GPS offsets (black vectors) with 95% uncertainties 
compared with predicted horizontal offsets. The model vectors are calculated 
from the coseismic slip model obtained by the joint InSAR / GPS inversion on a 
homogeneous sphere with Poisson's ratio=0.25, which is contoured in gray (values 
in meters). White lines indicate the surface projection of the fault plane. 

7. 2011gl047065-ts01.pdf  
Table S1. Summary of February 28, 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake coseismic models.

