Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp.

646-659, June 1994

The Co-Seismic Slip Distribution of the Landers Earthquake

b y J. F r e y m u e l l e r , N. E. K i n g , and P. Segall

Abstract We derived a model for the co-seismic slip distribution on the faults
which ruptured during the Landers earthquake sequence of 28 June 1992. The
model is based on the inversion of surface geodetic measurements, primarily
vector displacements measured using the Global Positioning System (GPS). The
inversion procedure assumes that the slip distribution is to some extent smooth
and purely right-lateral strike slip. For a given fault geometry, a family of so-
lutions of varying smoothness can be generated.
We choose the optimal model from this family based on cross-validation,
which measures the predictive power of the data, and the trade-off of misfit and
roughness. Solutions which give roughly equal weight to misfit and smoothness
are preferred and have certain features in common: (1) there are two main patches
of slip, on the Johnson Valley fault, and on the Homestead Valley, Emerson,
and Camp Rock faults; (2) virtually all slip is in the upper 10 to 12 km; and
(3) the model reproduces the general features of the geologically measured sur-
face displacements, without prior constraints on the surface slip. In all models,
regardless of smoothing, very little slip is required on the fault that represents
the Big Bear event, and the total m o m e n t of the Landers event is 9.1019 N-m.
The nearly simultaneous rupture of multiple distinct faults suggests that much
of the crust in this region must have been close to failure prior to the earthquake.

Introduction
The Landers earthquake (Mw = 7.3) occurred at 11:58
UTC on 28 June 1992, and was followed about 3 hr later
by the Big Bear earthquake (Mw = 6.2). The Landers
earthquake ruptured five major faults, with a total rup-
ture length of approximately 85 km (Fig. 1). It occurred
in the southern part of the Eastern California Shear Zone
(ECSZ), a broad zone of active shear that extends from
the San Andreas fault north to the east edge of the Sierra
Nevada (Dokka and Travis, 1990a; Dokka and Travis,
1990b; Savage et al., 1990). In the area of the Landers
rupture, the shear zone consists of an 80-km-wide band
of active right-lateral strike-slip faults (Dokka, 1983;
Dokka and Travis, 1990a). The Big Bear earthquake did
not rupture to the surface. There remains some uncer-
tainty as to the structure which generated it, and it may
have been a double event, rupturing a pair of faults of
conjugate orientation (Jones and Hough, 1993; Jones and
Helmberger, 1993).
Within 30 hr of the earthquake, field crews from
several institutions began to deploy Global Positioning
System (GPS) receivers in order to measure co-seismic
and postseismic displacements. Intensive field measure-
ments continued for 3 weeks, and additional GPS sites
were occupied later in the year. Hudnut et al. (1994)
present a summary of the measured co-seismic displace-
ments, including displacements determined by Stanford
and the USGS along with those of several other groups.
We analyzed most of the available pre-earthquake and
postearthquake GPS data to determine the co-seismic dis-
placement field (Fig. 2). We then inverted the co-seis-
mic displacements and line-length changes to determine
the distribution of slip on the faults that ruptured during
the earthquake sequence.
Landers-Big Bear Sequence Overview
The Landers mainshock initiated at a depth of 3 to
6 km on the Johnson Valley fault at 34.2 ° N, 116.4 ° W
(Hauksson et al., 1993). The rupture propagated to the
north, rupturing portions of the Johnson Valley, Kick-
apoo, Homestead Valley, Emerson, and Camp Rock faults
(Sieh et al., 1993). Surface rupture was also reported on
other faults, including the Burnt Mountain and Eureka
Peak faults to the south of the mainshock. These faults
were probably ruptured by an aftershock which occurred
within the first few minutes after the mainshock (Hough
et al., 1993).
Surface slip was variable, averaging 2 to 3 m over
much of the rupture (Ponti, 1993; Sieh et al., 1993).
Two clear peaks in the slip distribution were observed,
a southern peak on the northern part of the Johnson Val-

646
The Co-Seismic Slip Distribution of the Landers Earthquake 647

117 ° 30'W 117" 15'W 117" 0 ~ W 116" 45'W t16" 30'W 116'15'W 116" 00'W 115"45'W
35" 00'N I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .............. j
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I .............. 35"00'N

~SOAP //Z~HARVARD

~..IECT
34" 45'N 34" 45'N
A7007
,~o?

, OOl i
~CAJO
~EGUNDO

34" 15'N ABEAR .-" ,ILMEEKS 34" 15'N

•" ALMTECC

I 'Lu
..'" ~ONYX
•"' !
...'" OOW

,ooN l -o o ..1, / .... ooN

&c/u~

33" 45'N 33" 45'N

11T 30W 1 1 T 15'W 117" 00'W 116" 45'W 116" 30'W 116" 15'W 116" 00'W 115" 45'W

Figure 1. The GPS and Geodolite (EDM) sites used in this study. Sites ob-
served by EDM only are shown as open triangles, and sites with GPS observations
are shown as filled triangles. The EDM lines used are also shown. The mapped
surface rupture, based on Sieh et al. (1993), is shown in solid lines, and the
model faults are shown with dotted lines.

ley fault and a broader northern peak on the Emerson Measurement (EDM) both before and after the earth-
and southern Camp Rock faults. Peak surface displace- quake. An initial geodetic slip model was derived by
ments of 6 m were measured along the Emerson fault. Murray et al. (1993) based on this data set. They mod-
The slip distribution estimated from the moment-rate eled the slip distribution using 10 uniform-slip disloca-
function observed at the TERRAscope station PAS shows tions, and obtained a reasonable fit to most of the data.
a similar slip distribution, with two peaks separated by Their slip distribution did not match the observed surface
a trough with very little moment release (Kanamori et slip very well, especially in the southern part of the rup-
al., 1992). ture, but their estimate of the moment released, 8" 1019
N-m, was in agreement with other estimates, which range
Previous Geodetic Results from 8 to 11 • 1019 N-m (Kanamori et al., 1992; Sieh et
Far-field displacements were measured at the five al., 1993).
continuously operating GPS sites of the Southern Cali-
fornia Permanent GPS Geodetic Array (PGGA) (Bock et Observed Geodetic Displacements
al., 1993; Blewitt et al., 1993). These sites are at least
80 km from the nearest surface rupture. Bock et al. and The observed co-seismic displacements relative to
Blewitt et al. each report co-seismic displacements of up the far field are shown in Figure 2. These displacements
to 48 ram, based on the same raw GPS data but with are based on 38 displacement vectors measured with GPS,
independent analysis techniques. The displacements re- and 58 line-length changes measured by EDM. In this
ported by the two groups agree to within their uncer- figure, the GPS site at Vandenberg Air Force Base ( - 3 7 5
tainties. We included a subset of the data used by Bock km from the epicenter) is assumed not to have moved
et al. and Blewitt et al. in our analysis, and our dis- co-seismically. Only line lengths are measured with EDM,
placements for the PGGA sites agree with the results of so there are rotational and translational null vectors in
both groups to better than the uncertainties. the derived displacement field (e.g., Segall and Mat-
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) measured 58 thews, 1988). These null vectors are removed by esti-
line lengths between 30 sites by Electronic Distance mating displacements based on both the EDM and GPS
648 J. Freymueller, N. E. King, and P. Segall

117" 3 0 ' W 117" 15'W 117" 0O'W 116" 4 5 ' W 116" 3 f f W 116" 15'W 116" 0 0 ' W 115" 45'W
35"00'N i .............. i .............. , .............. ~. . . . . ~ . . . , . . . 1 ~ ............. i .............. ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . J 35"00'N

~x

34" 45'N 0 34" 45'N

34" 30'N 34" 30'N

34" 15'N 34" 15'N

34" 00'N • 34" 00'N

k~

zk
2m

33" 45'N ............. i .............. [ .............. i .............. ~ ........... I. i . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i ............ It ' 33" 45'N
1 1 T 30'W 11T 15'W 11T 00W 116" 45'W 116" 30'W 116" 15'W 1160 O0'W 115" 45'W

Figure 2. Observed (heavy vectors) and model (light vectors) co-seismic dis-
placements with 95% confidence ellipses. These displacements are based on a
combination of GPS and EDM data. Sites with large error ellipses are those which
have only single-frequency GPS data prior to the earthquake. The model dis-
placements are based on the best model, with surface-slip constraints applied.
The different models of Figures 5 and 6 produce very similar model displace-
ments. On the scale shown here, the model displacements are indistinguishable.

data sets. The rotational ambiguity in the EDM displace- The GPS data used in this study comes from a va-
ments is resolved by the GPS displacements at the seven riety of sources. More details are given by Hudnut et al.
sites, which were measured by both methods. The trans- (1994). Prior to the Landers earthquake, no single in-
lational ambiguity is removed by assuming that Van- stitution had done a complete high-precision geodetic
denberg had no displacement. The slip inversions done survey of the entire area surrounding the Landers rup-
in this study used the relative GPS displacements and ture. Instead, several institutions had surveyed portions
EDM line-length changes rather than the derived dis- of the area. These data sets are overlapping and com-
placements of Figure 2, so they would not be affected plementary. With the exception of two pre-earthquake
if Vandenberg did in fact move. surveys carried out and analyzed by the USGS, all of the
raw GPS data used to derive the displacements used in
GPS Vector Displacements this study were analyzed at Stanford. Pre-earthquake data
When several sites are measured simultaneously came from five principal sources: the San Bernardino
within a region of a few hundred kilometers in size, one County Surveyor's Office GIMMS network, the Califor-
can use GPS to determine intersite vectors with subcen- nia Department of Transportation High Precision Geo-
timeter precision using standard data collection and anal- detic Network (HPGN) survey, the USGS, the Caltech
ysis techniques. The positions of the sites relative to a and County Surveyors' Inter-County surveys, and the
distant global network of GPS sites (Fig. 3) can also be permanent stations of the PGGA. The GIMMS network
determined with a precision of roughly 1 cm. Displace- is notable in that single-frequency GPS receivers were
ment vectors are measured by differencing the GPS-de- used, which seriously limits the precision of the survey
termined positions from two epochs. For this study, the and requires special care in data analysis. The precision
displacements have been computed relative to the per- of that survey is further limited by the very short (1 hr)
manent GPS site at Vandenberg Air Force Base, the clos- observation sessions used, in contrast to the 8 to 24-hr
est permanent site unaffected by the earthquake. sessions used in a typical high-precision GPS survey.
The Co-Seismic Slip Distribution of the Landers Earthquake
OKR
".,A"
Figure 3. Global GPS network. The global GPS sites used in this study are
shown with triangles. Solid triangles are used for the sites which were con-
strained--see the text for details.
However, this data is valuable, because many of these
sites are located in areas near the rupture zone where no
higher-precision GPS sites were measured prior to the
earthquake. Postearthquake GPS data taken by Caltech,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the Southern California
Earthquake Center (SCEC), Scripps Institution of Ocean-
ography, Stanford, and USGS were used in our solu-
tions.
Single-Frequency GPS Data. The analysis of single-
frequency GPS data poses several challenges. The data
must be treated specially, as it is biased by errors re-
suiting from propagation delays as the GPS signals pass
through the ionosphere. With dual-frequency data it is
possible to use the measurements on the second fre-
quency to eliminate the ionospheric path-delay error. We
used the Bernese GPS software for this part of the anal-
ysis because it is well suited to handling single-fre-
quency data. To simplify the analysis of this data, we
used the Scripps PGGA orbits rather than the less precise
broadcast ephemeris. The error induced by the propa-
gation delay is proportional to the integrated total elec-
tron content (TEC) along the propagation path. The path
delay is spatially and temporally variable. Uncorrected
ionospheric path-delay error will systematically bias the
estimated coordinates for all stations (the entire network
of stations will appear to shrink), and small-scale vari-
ations in the integrated TEC will cause local distortions
in the estimated coordinates as well.
To correct the single-frequency data, empirical ion-
649
ospheric models were generated using dual-frequency data
from nearby permanent GPS sites (Goldstone, Pinyon,
JPL, and Scripps). The relative ionospheric delays de-
termined from these sites were used to estimate coeffi-
cients for a polynomial expansion of the TEC as a func-
tion of position and time. We used a model that assumes
all free electrons are concentrated in a thin spherical shell
350 km above the surface of the earth. The point where
the ray from the satellite to the receiver pierces the shell
can be computed from the receiver position and satellite
orbits. The model parametn'.'zes the path delay as a func-
tion of the latitude and hour angle of the piercing point,
and the angle of incidence of the incoming ray (Geor-
giadou and Kleusberg, 1988). The hour angle is deter-
mined by longitude and time of day.
The GIMMS survey was carried out using two to seven
60 to 120-rain sessions per day. The receivers did not
record data between sessions. An independent iono-
spheric model was generated for each session, using a
second-order polynomial in hour angle and a first-order
polynomial in latitude. On average, these models re-
move the systematic bias but cannot remove the local
distortions. The integrated TEC was highly variable over
the time of the single-frequency survey, which ran from
October 1991 to May 1992. The modeled TEC varied by
up to an order of magnitude between the most active
days and the quietest days. Variation within each day
was much smaller but still substantial. Rapid variations
in the TEC are not modeled well with this parameteri-
zation, and some residual ionospheric errors may remain
650
on such days. The stations in the northern part of the
G1MMS network (especially 7000, 7001, and DUMP) were
observed on days with large and variable TEC, and these
solutions could contain biases.
Each day of the GIMMS network was analyzed in-
dependently. Data from all sessions on each day were
analyzed together to give a single estimate for the co-
ordinates of the stations observed that day. All of the
independent daily solutions were then adjusted together
to determine the best-fitting coordinates for all of the
sites based on all of the data. The covariance of the co-
ordinates was scaled by the misfit of the adjustment so
that the reduced chi-square statistic was unity. The rms
misfit of the adjustment was reduced by roughly 50% by
applying the ionospheric models. Even so, the precision
of the pre-earthquake positions for these stations is fairly
low, with the best being determined to about 30 mm.
Most positions were determined to about 50 mm. These
data are inherently noisier than the more precise dual
frequency data, and despite the best efforts may contain
systematic biases owing to the ionosphere. Such a bias
would appear as an anomalous expansion or contraction
of a part of the network.
Dual-Frequency GPS Data. We analyzed most of the
dual-frequency GPS data at Stanford using the GIPSY/
OASIS II software developed at the Jet Propulsion Lab-
oratory of the California Institute of Technology, Pre-
earthquake positions for a few sites were provided by
USGS, computed using the Bernese GPS software. Com-
parison of the coordinates of two common sites, relative
to the PGGA site Pinyon, showed agreement at the level
of - 1 cm. Therefore, combining the two data sets should
not introduce significant errors into the displacements
despite the differences in the analysis.
The pre-earthquake data come from three time pe-
riods. The earliest data are from the HPGN (we used 6
days from the period April through July 1991). Data from
the Caltech-led Inter-County network (9 days in April
1992) and from the 5 days of PGGA data immediately
preceding the earthquake complete the pre-earthquake
data set. Postearthquake data comes from the 21 days
immediately following the earthquake.
No corrections were made for tectonic motion. Over
the year between the HPGN survey and the earthquake,
up to about 3 cm of accumulated relative displacement
(a rough approximation based on the San Andreas fault
average slip rate) could have accumulated across the en-
tire network, including the PGGA sites. Roughly half as
much displacement could have accumulated after the ob-
servation of portions of the GIMMS network. Secular de-
formation is not an issue with the single-frequency GIMMS
network, however, since the uncertainties in the dis-
placements for those sites are considerably higher than
the potential accumulated secular deformation. Virtually
all of the HPGN and other sites used in this study, in-
J. Freymueller, N. E. King, and P. Segall
cluding the PGGA Goldstone site (Goldstone tracking
complex near Barstow), are on the North American side
of the San Andreas fault system, but the PGGA JPL (at
Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and Pinyon (Pinyon Flat Ob-
servatory southwest of Palm Springs) sites are on the
Pacific side. The positions of sites in the Landers area,
which were measured at different times, are related to
each another via the PGGA sites, which are assumed not
to deform over the entire time period. Any motion of the
PGGA sites would introduce a bias in the positions of
sites in the Landers area. The magnitude of the bias is
not easy to estimate, but is small compared to the co-
seismic displacements.
The Stanford GPS solutions used a global network
of GPS stations (Fig. 3) to estimate precise satellite orbits
and provide a consistent frame of reference for deter-
mining co-seismic displacements. The global network
consists of ~25 high-quality GPS receivers which track
the GPS satellites 24 hr a day. These data were analyzed
simultaneously with the dual-frequency data from sta-
tions in the Landers area. Station coordinates were es-
timated for all stations, and precise satellite orbits were
estimated for all satellites. The positions of several sta-
tions distributed around the globe (ALGO, CANB, FAIR,
HART, KOKR, ONSA, and PENT; see Fig. 3 for loca-
tions) were assigned a priori uncertainties of 5 cm; the
a priori site positions were based on the Goddard Space
Flight Center VLBI model GLB753. These positions
should in theory be accurate to 2 to 3 cm so a 5-cm a
priori constraint is conservative. Independent solutions
were computed for each day of data. The remaining sites,
including all those in the Landers area, were given a
priori uncertainties of 1 kin. The positions of most sites
measured with dual-frequency receivers are determined
to about 10 mm or better. The exceptions are some sites
which were observed for short periods of time; these are
determined to about 20 to 30 mm. The positions of the
PGGA sites are determined to 3 to 4 ram.
Coordinates from all of the pre-earthquake solutions
were adjusted together to form a complete, consistent set
of pre-earthquake coordinates. The adjustment was car-
ded out in two steps. In the first step, all the of the data
from each of the four pre-earthquake networks (GIMMS,
HPGN, Inter-County, and June 1992 PGGA) were ad-
justed to form a complete set of coordinates for each
individual network. The four resulting sets of coordi-
nates were then adjusted together to form the final set
of pre-earthquake coordinates. In the final adjustment,
only California sites were adjusted together, to avoid the
problem of correcting for global plate motions. The po-
sition of the Landers-area stations relative to the global
network was based only on the June 1992 PGGA data.
A similar process was used for the postearthquake data,
except that only one step was required since the post-
earthquake data set spanned only 21 days. In each ad-
justment, the covariance of the coordinates were scaled
The Co-Seismic Slip Distribution of the Landers Earthquake
by the reduced chi-square statistic of the weighted ad-
justment residuals. Prior to scaling, the reduced chi-square
statistic (for the global solutions) was typically in the
range of (2 to 2.5) 2, indicating that the formal uncer-
tainties on a global scale were slightly underestimated.
The covariance of the single-frequency GIMMS survey
was scaled by a factor of about 82, a result of both the
ionospheric errors which remain in that data set and the
tendency of the Bernese software to underestimate the
covariance of the estimated coordinates.
EDM Data
Four separate EDM networks (Fig. 1), consisting of
58 lines between 30 sites, span the Landers rupture zone
(Savage et al., 1993). The networks which span the
southern part of the Landers rupture zone and the region
to the south were observed shortly before and shortly
after the earthquake. The coverage of the northern Lan-
ders rupture zone is not as good; most lines are north or
west of the rupture, and the last pre-earthquake EDM
surveys were done 3 to 10 yr prior to the earthquake. To
correct for the varying index of refraction along the beam
path, temperature and humidity measurements are made
from a small plane during ranging. With these measure-
ments, plus endpoint pressures, the precision of the Geo-
dolite EDM is (a2 + b2L2)1/2, where a = 3 mm, b =
2.10 -7, and L is baseline length in kilometers (Savage
and Prescott, 1973). The Geodolite lines in the Landers
area are 6.7- to 31.7-km long, with corresponding pre-
cision of 3.3 to 7 mm.
The 38-line Joshua EDM network spans the southern
half of the rupture zone (Landers and Johnson Valley
segments). It also spans the Pinto Mountain fault east of
the epicenter, and extends southward to the Joshua Tree
epicenter and the San Andreas fault. The USGS surveyed
the Joshua network in late April 1992, after the Joshua
Tree event and just 2 months before the Landers earth-
quake. The postseismic survey was done in the first week
of August 1992, about 1 month after the earthquake. The
Edom monitor array (Fig. 1) spans the San Andreas fault
about 15 km southwest of the Joshua Tree epicenter. Three
lines southwest of the Joshua Tree epicenter. Three lines
southwest of the San Andreas fault supplement the Joshua
network coverage of the 1992 earthquakes. The USGS
observes this array with both EDM and GPS. The last
preseismic EDM and GPS observations were done only
2 months before the earthquake. Postseismic EDM and
GPS surveys were done I month after the earthquake.
The Barstow EDM network is north of the Landers rup-
ture. The southernmost station, Lava, is about 15 km
northwest of the northern tip of the rupture zone. The
USGS Observed two lines out of Lava five times between
1979 and 1989, and resurveyed these lines with GPS af-
ter the earthquake. The preseismic rates of change were
1 to 2 mm/yr in absolute value, suggesting that about 7
651
mm may have accumulated between the last survey and
the earthquake.
The Mojave EDM network spans the Homestead
segments of the Landers rupture zone. Most of these lines
are west of the rupture. The USGS observed the lines of
the western Mojave network only twice, with EDM in
1982 and with GPS in 1992. Thus the "co-seismic"
changes for the lines of the Mojave network contain 10
yr of secular deformation. Savage et al. (1990) used
triangulation and EDM data to calculate the deviatoric
strain rate from 1934 to 1982 for the western Mojave
network. The principal strain rates are 0.08 --- 0.02 and
-0.08 --- 0.02 microstrain per year, with the axis of
maximum strain oriented N86 ° W --- 5°. Triangulation
data does not allow the dilatational component of strain
to be estimated. We assume that these results describe
the secular deformation between 1982 and 1992, and use
them to estimate a preseismic correction for each line of
the western Mojave network. In the approximately 10 yr
between the two USGS surveys, the principal strain rates
predict that lines parallel to the maximum or minimum
axis should change by approximately 0.8 or - 0 . 8 parts
per million. Most of the predicted secular changes are
less than 10 mm in absolute value. The largest is a 21.2-
mm contraction for Lucerne South Base-Ord, the long-
est line (26.8 km) of the western Mojave network. For
each line, we subtracted the estimated secular change
from the observed 1982 to 1992 change. We assume that
the remaining signal is the co-seismic deformation as-
sociated with the Landers earthquake.
Estimation of the Co-Seismic Slip Distribution
The estimation of the slip distribution on a fault from
geodetic displacements is inherently nonunique. Many
different slip distributions can produce the same dis-
placements at any set of points on the surface [for a fur-
ther discussion, see, for example, D u e t al. (1992)]. We
will restrict ourselves to models having pure strike-slip
faulting on a given set of faults which approximate the
trace of the surface rupture. Furthermore, the sense of
slip will be restricted, so only models with right-lateral
slip on the Landers faults and left-lateral slip on the Big
Bear fault will be used. To regularize the problem, we
will also require the slip distribution to be smooth by
minimizing a weighted linear combination of the data
misfit and the roughness of the slip distribution.
The fault model is specified by the location, orien-
tation, and dimensions of all faults which slipped in the
earthquake. Each fault is subdivided into a regular grid
of subfaults. We model the Landers rupture using a sim-
ple five-plane model, with each plane subdivided into 2-
by 2-km elements (Table 1). The five planes correspond
to the five major faults that ruptured, and are comparable
to the parametrization used by Murray et al. (1993). This
model ignores the discontinuities in the surface rupture;
652
Model Fault Parametrization*
Extends From
Fault Latitude
Camp Rock 34°39.75 '
Emerson 34°34.05 '
Homestead Valley 34°30.22 '
Landers 34°23.50 '
Johnson Valley 34018,50 '
*All faults extend from the surface to 18-kin depth, and have 9 vertical subfaults.
it assumes a continuous rupture across all five faults. A
comparison of the model geometry to the actual surface
rupture is shown in Figure 1. The geometry is a good
approximation to the surface rupture in the northern part
of the rupture, but has shortcomings where the surface
rupture stepped over from the Johnson Valley fault to
the Homestead Valley fault (via the previously un-
mapped Kickapoo fault).
Additional fault elements were introduced at each
end of the grid and below the grid. These elements sim-
plify the boundary conditions for the smoothing operator
and were constrained to have zero slip. The model grid
extended to 18-km depth, significantly deeper than the
depth of the deepest aftershocks, in order to minimize
the effect of the lower boundary condition. The model
grid was extended beyond the edges of the principal sur-
face rupture in order to minimize the effect of the end
boundary conditions. The model is not significantly al-
tered if the slip on these elements is not constrained, and
the preferred estimate for these elements is zero slip.
The model relating the observed geodetic data d to
the fault slip distribution s is
d = Gs,
where the equations have been weighted so that the data
have unit covariance. The model matrix G is computed
assuming a uniform elastic half-space with a Poisson's
ratio of 0.25. We minimize the functional
F(s,,8) = IGs - dl 2 +/32LHs[ 2,
subject to inequality constraints s, --- 0 for all subfaults
i. Dextral slip is considered to be positive, so for the
assumed sinistral Big Bear rupture s, is replaced by -si.
The smoothing operator H is a finite-difference approx-
imation of the Laplacian operator (Harris and Segall,
1987). The first term of (2) is the squared L2 norm of
the residual vector, and will be called the misfit. The
second term will be called the roughness. The term/32
is a coefficient that weights the penalty on roughness
relative to misfit. Thus, varying/3 produces a family of
solutions of varying roughness and misfit (Fig. 4a). Note
J. Freymueller, N. E. King, and P. Segall
Table 1
Extends To
Number of Horizontal
Longitude Latitude Longitude Subfaults
- 116°41.20' 34°34.05 , - 116%4,32' 7
- 116°34.32 ' 34°30.22 ' - 116°31.33' 4
- 116°31.33' 34°23,50 ' - 116°28,00 ' 7
-116°28.00 ' 34°18,50 ' -116°26.17 ' 4
-116°26.17 ' 34°08,17 ' -116°25.06 ' 9
that the misfit is nonzero even when no smoothing is
used, indicating that no model of the assumed geometry
satisfying the positivity constraints can perfectly fit the
data. The misfit is nonzero without positivity constraints
as well.
One might choose the smoothest solution which does
not appreciably increase the misfit above the level of the
unsmoothed solution. Alternatively, the smoothing weight
could be chosen so that the maximum slip at depth re-
mains "reasonable." However, these methods of deter-
mining the optimum smoothing weight are very subjec-
tive. The question of the proper weight to be given to
smoothing is critical--with less smoothing the solutions
have higher maximum slip and a smaller rupture area,
while solutions with a larger weight given to smoothing
will have smaller slip amplitudes and a larger overall
rupture area.
One objective means to determine the optimum
smoothing is to choose the solution with shallow slip
which best agrees with the observed surface-slip distri-
bution. In this case, agreement with the surface slip did
not prove to be a useful method to determine the opti-
mum smoothing weight, since there were two places on
(1) the fault where the geodetic slip model disagreed sig-
nificantly with the observed surface slip for all values of
/3 which were tried (this included models which weighted
roughness more than 2000 times more than misfit). One
of these two areas of disagreement with the observed
surface slip remained even when the surface-slip obser-
vations were included as prior information, and will be
(2) discussed later.
The statistical method of cross-validation provides
another objective means to determine the optimum weight
given to smoothing (Matthews and Segall, 1993; Arna-
dottir, 1993). Cross-validation measures the ability of a
model to predict independent data. A model is deter-
mined using all but one of the data points, and this model
is used to predict the value of the datum that was left
out. This process is repeated for each datum. The sum
of the squares of the prediction errors (called the Cross-
Validation Sum of Squares, or CVSS) is a measure of
the model's predictive ability. The model with smallest
CVSS is in principle the optimal model. The CVSS for
The Co-Seismic Slip Distribution of the Landers Earthquake 653

models with different weights given to smoothing are

25OO shown in Figure 4b. The minimum CVSS is found for a
model with f12 = 0.0625. This model is quite rough, and
2250 .
features an unexpectedly high slip maximum of 19 m.
A possible bias in determining the optimum smooth-
2000
ing comes from the simplified model geometry used in
1750 this study. By ignoring some of the complexity of the
real faults, we force the model to become rougher in
1500 I ~,--More s m o o t h i n g (beta = 1.0) order to continue to satisfy the data. This bias can affect
~[ ~Preferred solution(beta= 0.5)
cross-validation as well as the more subjective measures
"~ 1250 ' = ' of determining the optimum smoothing. In particular, the
near-field sites are most sensitive to both real variations
lOOO
in slip and inadequacy in the model geometry. Prediction
750
residuals from near-field sites dominate the CVSS for all
values of smoothing. Arbitrarily downweighting the near-
500 field sites would counter this possible bias but would
also reduce our ability to determine whether there were
250 any real short-wavelength features in the slip distribu-
tion. For now, we prefer a slightly smoother model than
0
5 10 15 20 25 the model with the CVSS, but the question of the opti-
Roughness mum smoothing remains only partially answered.
(a) We could not obtain an acceptable fit to the data
from three EDM lines and one GPS vector. The misfit of
these EDM lines was of the order of 15 to 20 tr, while
the misfit of other lines was 2 to 5 tr on average. The
i ,
GPS vector which could not be fit was the site Meeks,
\
10500 - j \ located in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains
i \ west of the hypocenter. One of the EDM lines which
f '\
could not be fit included this site. Since the EDM and
9000" GPS data were misfit in a consistent way by about l0
'\\ cm, we concluded that there was probably local defor-
"\
mation near this station and did not use its data in the
\\\
~ ~ ..~ ~ " ~O~ ~ J ' ~ " ~ ~ r ~ ' J "~~
inversions. The other EDM lines with a large misfit, Old
L)
W o m a n - R o c k (west of the northern part of the rupture)
and Edom-Warren (crossing the San Andreas fault south
of the rupture), were also deleted. It is worth noting that
these data, including the lines to Meeks, were not sig-
nificantly misfit by the model of Murray et al. (1993),
but the three lines which were significantly misfit (24 to
47 o') by their model are fit very well by our model.
The preferred slip model is shown in Figure 5a, with
the smoothing parameter/32 = 0.25 km 2. Models with
• • , . . . . , . . . . , . . . . i . . . .

5 10 15 20 less (the minimum CVSS model) and more smoothing

Beta
are shown in Figures 5b and c, respectively. A model
(b) which includes constraints based on the observed surface
slip is shown in Figure 6. Certain features are clearly
Figure 4. (a) Trade-off curve between rough- visible in all of these models. Virtually all the slip is in
ness and misfit. Varying the smoothing parameter
produces a family of solutions of varying misfit the upper 10 to 12 km, in excellent agreement with the
and roughness. The preferred solution is the one aftershock distribution reported by Sieh et al. (1993).
which does not unduly increase the misfit to the Two major patches of slip release are clearly identified,
data. Based on this criterion, the preferred solu- a southern patch on the Johnson Valley fault and a north-
tion is for fl = 0.5. (b) The CVSS as a function ern patch on the Homestead Valley and Emerson faults.
of the smoothing parameter ft. There is no sharp
minimum, but the preferred solution has ~ = 0.25. The centroid of the southern patch is 2- to 4-km deeper
This is the solution which is best able to predict than that of the northern patch. The southern patch is
independent data, based on the "leave one out" located about 8 km north of the hypocenter. There is
approach of cross-validation. only about 2 m of slip at the hypocenter. Observed and
 654
a. Preferred model ( [52 = 0.25 )
18km
b.
18kin
C,
o
18 km
r-- i I III III
, Right lateral slip (m)
Figure 5. Models with no surface constraints.
All three models are shown in perspective view,
with north to the left. The three models are (a) the
preferred model, (b) a model with less smoothing,
and (c) a model with more smoothing. The es-
sential features of the preferred model are also
present in the other models: virtually all slip above
10- to 12-km depth, and two distinct patches of
high slip on the Johnson Valley fault and the
Homestead Valley and Emerson faults. The mag-
nitude of the slip maximum decreases as smooth-
ing is increased.
model displacement vectors for the preferred model are
shown in Figure 2. The rms misfit, rms [ ( o b s e r v e d -
c o m p u t e d ) / t r ] , of the preferred model is 2.4 for the 167
data used to derive the model.
The total seismic moment of the model is 9" 10 t9
N-m, in good agreement with the moment obtained by
seismic means (Kanamori et al., 1992; Sieh et al., 1993).
In our preferred model, 61% of the moment was released
by slip on the Homestead Valley and Emerson faults,
and 21% on the Johnson Valley fault (Table 2). Our model
geometry does not distinguish between the overlapping
segments of the Homestead Valley, Emerson, and Camp
J. Freymueller, N. E. King, and P. Segall
L._ z~,,;~ ::: I IIII I
Right lateral slip (m)
Figure 6. Model with surface constraints. This
model uses the same smoothing parameter as the
preferred model of Figure 5a, but adds constraints
based on the surface slip. The essential features
of the models of Figure 5 are not changed by add-
ing surface constraints.
Table 2
Moment Release Summary (The Total Moment
Released was 9 × 10~9 N-m)
Fault Fraction of Total Moment
Camp Rock 7%
Emerson 23%
I
Homestead Valley 38%
Lenders ! 1%
Johnson Valley 21%
Rock faults, so there could be trade-offs in the estimates
of moment release for the individual faults.
The surface slip predicted by our model is larger and
more variable along strike than the observed surface slip,
unless surface-slip constraints are added (Fig. 7). The
surface-slip distribution used for comparison is from field
mapping done by the USGS (Ponti, 1993). The surface
slip constraints are added by including the geological
surface-slip observations as data in the inversion. The
uncertainties in the surface-slip data were assigned based
on the variability of the observed surface slip within each
element (subfault). Typical assigned uncertainties ranged
from 50 to 200 cm. With the surface-slip constraints
added, the misfit of the GPS and EDM data increased by
18%, but the overall features of the model are not changed.
The geodetic and surface data are incompatible only in
one location, on a portion of the southern Homestead
Valley fault. At this location, 2.5 m of surface slip was
observed, but the model predicts 9 m of slip. The site
Maumee (GPS and EDM) is located very close to this
fault segment (Fig. 1). A subsidiary fault not included
The Co-Seismic Slip Distribution of the Landers Earthquake 655

1500.

-,-.-o--

1000- ....... .@._

":A
..-- ? il :':" :J~
:
.... •o - .

500 -

.." .: .~ , ,;, /" .:

,~ i ":.'. :
i " i ,: !
.~ " -: A' 0
i " £-q
0
-20 0 20 4O 60

Distance along fault trace (km)

Figure 7. Surface-slip comparison. The surface slip predicted by the models

with and without surface-slip constraints are compared to the observed surface
slip (Ponti, 1993). Without surface constraints, the geodetic model generally
overestimates the observed surface slip, but the major peaks in both models are
located in similar places. With surface constraints, the only significant difference
between the model and the observed surface slip is at 22 km from the epicenter,
where the model predicts close to 900 cm of slip, versus the 250 cm observed.
The GPS and EDM site Maumee is located very close to the fault at this location
(see text).

in the model which had up to 50 cm of surface offset
(Ponti, 1993) is located close to Maumee. The high sur-
face slip in the model at this point is probably a result
of local motion at Maumee which cannot otherwise be
explained with our model fault geometry. Because dis-
placement decreases as - 1 / r 2, where r is the distance
to the fault, a small offset on an unmodeled fault near
to the geodetic station can be mapped into large slip on
the model fault.
There are two other patches of high slip which are
present in our models (Figs. 5 and 6) which are not pres-
ent in the surface slip, and are unlikely to be real. These
are on the southern Johnson Valley fault, south of the
epicenter, and the northern end of the Camp Rock fault.
They probably also appear for the same reasons as the
anomalous slip near Maumee, local deformation and an
inadequacy in the model fault geometry. Both of these
patches occur where a low-precision GPS site is located
within roughly 1 km of the surface trace of the rupture.
The patch on the southern Johnson Valley fault is de-
termined primarily by the displacement of the site 6054,
located on Old Woman Springs Road within a few hundred
meters of the fault trace (Fig. 1). The slip patch at the
northern end of the rupture is determined primarily by
the displacement of the site 7000, located on Camp Rock
Road within about 1 km of the surface trace. The dis-
placement of 7000 is poorly fit by the model, with a
large fault-normal motion component not explained by
the model (Fig. 2).
The Big Bear Fault
Regardless of the degree of smoothing, our models
placed very little slip on the Big Bear fault. Peak slip in
our model for Big Bear is just over 1-m left lateral, but
the slip is found only in a small area near the station
ONYX (the closest to the fault). The area of nonzero slip
is located a considerable distance northeast of the hy-
pocenter. This moment release is only a few percent of
the seismic moment, and it is not clear why the esti-
mated moment is so low. In the preferred model, there
is 300 times more moment release on the Landers faults
as on the Big Bear fault. We also tried models which
used a single uniform dislocation to describe the fault
which ruptured in the Big Bear event, and these models
also had very little slip. More slip on the Big Bear fault
is found when data is included from Meeks (a GPS and
EDM site near the east end of the Big Bear aftershock
zone which is very poorly fit and was not used in the
models presented here). However, including data from
Meeks significantly increases the overall misfit, and the
slip on the Big Bear fault is concentrated at the extreme
northeast end of the fault, far from the hypocenter.
There are only two other sites (Bear and Onyx) in
the near field of the Big Bear event. The Big Bear event
did not rupture the surface and had a much lower mo-
ment than the Landers event, so the surface displace-
ments for this event are about an order of magnitude
smaller than those of the Landers event. To estimate the
656
ability of our data to resolve slip on the Big Bear fault,
we generated synthetic data for a model with 1 m of left-
lateral slip from depths of 2 to 12 km on the Big Bear
fault, and inverted this synthetic data. The imaged slip
distribution was very similar to the input distribution.
We tried models with no slip on the Landers faults, and
with realistic slip distribution on the Landers faults, and
in all these synthetic models the estimated slip distri-
bution had about 1 m of left-lateral slip on the Big Bear
fault. So, it seems that an appropriate amount of slip on
the Big Bear fault should be in our estimated model if
there was actually slip on the assumed fault. However,
all that can be said with certainty is that the geodetic
data can be satisfied without significant slip on the Big
Bear fault. More stations close to the Big Bear fault,
especially to the west, would be required in order for the
geodetic data to constrain the amount of slip on this fault
and answer questions about the orientation of the fault.
The Eureka Peak Fault
Co-seismic or immediate postseismic surface slip on
the Eureka Peak fault totaled about 20 cm (Hough et al.,
1993). Hough et al. suggested that this fault ruptured
during an aftershock only minutes after the mainshock,
and that it may have ruptured only minutes previously
during the mainshock. The geodetic data cannot shed any
light on the question of timing, but slip on this fault is
required to adequately fit the EDM data from nearby sites
(chiefly Warren). This fault was modeled as a uniform
dislocation extending from the surface to 12 km. Our
model estimates 35 cm of slip on this fault. If the actual
fault ruptured to 18 kin, the estimated slip would drop
to 25 cm, although the misfit is not significantly differ-
ent. We prefer the model with slip to 12-km depth be-
cause this is the depth of slip observed on the other faults.
Model Resolution
We tested the resolution of the model by generating
synthetic data from two sample slip distributions and in-
verting those data. The slip distributions tested were a
model with 5 m of slip from 8- to 12-kin depth on the
northernmost segments of the Johnson Valley fault (the
southern slip patch), and a model with 5 m of slip on
the northern Homestead Valley and Emerson faults at the
4- to 6-km depth (the northern slip patch). The inversion
of synthetic data is a good test of the resolution of the
model, as it shows how a known slip distribution would
be imaged given the actual data distribution and covari-
ance. Taken together, the earth's elastic response, the
measurement of geodetic data at a finite number of points,
and the inversion process which gives some weight to
the roughness of the slip distribution act as a filter which
maps the input "truth" slip distribution to the output es-
timated slip distribution. Because of these effects, we do
not expect to recover exactly the input slip distribution.
Instead, slip will be smeared out to produce a smoother
J. Freymueller, N. E. King, and P. Segall
a. Synthetic slip (5 m) placed on Johnson Valley fault
18
b. Synthetic slip (5 m) placed on Emerson and Homestead Valley faults
0
tSkm
'! ill
Right lateral slip (m)
Figure 8. Synthetic slip models. Synthetic slip
models were constructed to test the resolution of
the model (a) near the southern slip patch on the
Johnson valley fault and (b) near the northern slip
patch on the Emerson and Homestead Valley faults.
Synthetic data were computed from input models
which had 5 m of slip on all elements within the
thick solid lines. The models estimated from the
synthetic data are shown.
slip distribution. The better the imaged slip agrees with
the input slip, the greater the resolution of the model in
that region.
The imaged slip distribution for the first synthetic
model, for slip on the northern Johnson Valley fault, is
shown in Figure 8a. The elements which had 5 m of slip
in the input model are outlined in heavy lines. The peak
slip in the imaged distribution model is only 2.6 m, but
the total moment of the imaged slip is slightly higher
than that of the input slip. The centroid of the imaged
slip patch is slightly deeper than that of the actual slip
patch, suggesting that the data distribution systemati-
cally images slip deeper than it actually is in this region.
Another synthetic model with input slip placed closer to
the surface confirms this--slip on this part of the fault
is imaged as being 1 to 2 krn deeper than it actually is.
There is very little spread in the slip distribution along
strike. The imaged slip for the Homestead Valley/Emer-
The Co-Seismic Slip Distribution of the Landers Earthquake
son synthetic model is shown in Figure 8b. The input
slip distribution had 5 m of slip on 8 elements, all at 4-
to 6-km depth (outlined in heavy lines). Peak imaged
slip was about 3 m, but again the moment of the imaged
slip patch was slightly greater than that of the input patch.
The input slip patch had a line of elements with constant
slip, but the output model has two distinct areas of con-
centrated slip. This shows that the model lacks resolu-
tion in this area, so it cannot be used to infer the details
of the slip transfer from the Homestead Valley fault to
the Emerson fault. Otherwise, there is no significant
spread in depth or along strike.
Discussion
Our slip model has two distinct patches of high slip,
and thus high moment release, on the faults that ruptured
during the Landers event. The two patches correspond
to the two peaks in the seismic moment release as a func-
tion of time (Kanamori et al., 1992). The southern patch
is located on the northern Johnson Valley fault, about 8
km north of the hypocenter, at a depth of 8 to 12 km.
In the preferred model, the peak slip on this patch is
roughly 8 m, at a depth of 8 to 12 km, with surface slip
of 3 to 4 m. Based on the inversion of synthetic slip
models, the actual slip may have been 1 to 2 km shal-
lower than the model indicates. To the north of this patch
the slip at all depths decreases until the northern half of
the Homestead Valley fault. Slip on the Homestead Val-
ley and Emerson faults was concentrated in the depth
range 4 to 8 km, with a peak slip of 16 m on the southern
Emerson fault. Continuing to the north, the depth of the
slip maximum decreases--on the Emerson fault the slip
maximum is at a depth of 2 to 6 km. The model does
not have enough resolution to determine whether this slip
patch is a single continuous rupture across the two faults
or two separate ruptures separated in space. The model
puts very little slip at the hypocenter, suggesting that the
earthquake did not initiate solely as a result of a high
potential for slip at that point. This has been observed
for a number of other earthquakes, including the 1966
Parkfield earthquake (Segall and Du, 1993) and the Loma
Prieta earthquake (e.g., Beroza, 1991).
Even in models with much more smoothing than those
presented here, the peak slip at depth is greater than
the slip observed at the surface. Of course, the magni-
tude of the peak slip is dependent on the weight given
to smoothing. It is important to choose the optimum
smoothing in an objective way, otherwise the resulting
model will simply reflect our subjective prejudices about
what the slip distribution should look like. We have cho-
sen the optimum smoothing based on two criteria--the
results of cross-validation and the trade-off curve of mis-
fit versus roughness. It is possible that these models could
be biased toward a rougher solution because of the sim-
plified model geometry used in this study.
657
There was significant slip on at least three separate
faults: the Johnson Valley, Homestead Valley, and
Emerson/Camp Rock faults (the model does not distin-
guish between the Emerson and the southern Camp Rock
faults, which are parallel and separated by only 1 to 2
km at the surface). It is not clear from the geodetic model
whether slip was transferred smoothly at depth from the
Homestead Valley to the Emerson and Camp Rock faults.
It is clear that there was significant moment release on
both faults, regardless of the nature of the overlap. The
near-simultaneous rupture of all of these faults suggests
that they must have been close to brittle failure prior to
the earthquake. Along with the seismicity triggered by
the passage of waves from the Landers mainshock (Hill
et al., 1993), this may imply that broad areas of the crust
were close to failure at the time of the Landers main-
shock.
The slip distribution of our model is in good agree-
ment with the slip models of Cohee and Beroza (1994),
based on the inversion of strong-motion seismic data.
Both models image similar structures in similar loca-
tions, despite using different model geometries and com-
pletely independent data. The Cohee and Beroza model
has only two-thirds the total moment release of our model,
which may be due to the fact that they use only a portion
of the frequency band while the geodetic model is es-
sentially a DC offset. Except for the difference in slip
magnitude, the two models are very complementary. Wald
and Heaton (1994) used a similar geodetic data set in a
joint inversion with seismic data to determine the spatial
distribution and time history of the rupture. They used
a slightly different model geometry than in our model,
and they gave all displacements equal weight rather than
using the full covariance of the geodetic data. Despite
these differences, their inversion of the geodetic data
produced a model which is generally similar to ours. The
primary difference between the models is that their model
is much smoother than ours.
Our model uses a similar fault geometry to the geo-
detic slip model of Murray et al. (1993), and provides
a better fit to the geodetic data. They modeled the slip
distribution using 10 planar faults, each with a uniform
dislocation over its entire surface. The Johnson Valley,
Homestead Valley, and Camp Rock faults were subdi-
vided into two segments, and the other three main faults
that make up the Landers rupture were modeled as single
segments. Additional segments were used to represent
the Big Bear rupture and the Eureka Peak fault. Their
model did not agree with the surface slip in the southern
part of the rupture, but did place the largest amount of
slip on the northern Homestead Valley and Emerson faults.
They obtained 1 + 1.4 m of left-lateral slip on the Big
Bear structure, which gives a more reasonable moment
for Big Bear than does our model. However, this amount
of slip is not significantly different from zero. We sug-
gest that the main shortcoming of their model is that it
658
did not allow for sufficient spatial variation in slip, es-
pecially depth variation, and that uniform dislocations
were not representative of the true pattern of slip on the
faults.
Murray et al. (1993) were unable to fit acceptably
certain EDM lines, and increased the uncertainties of those
lines in their model. Our model fits those lines very well,
but was unable to fit two other lines which were fit well
by their model. They suggested that there could be sub-
stantial sympathetic slip on faults off the main Landers
structure, which could result in significant local defor-
mation. This is certainly possible, but a comparison of
the misfit of our model and theirs suggests that limita-
tions of the slip models may also explain the misfit of
the data. There is no compelling evidence for more than
10 cm of local deformation at any site. We expect that
later models will fit the data even better than ours, and
may be able to fit the data which our model cannot ex-
plain. Our model actually fits the data very well--the
rms misfit is 2.4 or, and the postfit rms residuals are
1/2870 of the prefit residuals (prefit residuals assume
no slip on any faults). Compared with the null model of
no deformation, our model explains 99.96% of the vari-
ance in the data.
Conclusions
Our co-seismic slip models show significant mo-
ment release on at least three separate (and separate at
depth) faults during the Landers rupture. The significant
patches of moment release were on the Johnson Valley
fault, and the Homestead Valley, Emerson, and Camp
Rock faults. Our model has significant moment release
on both the Homestead Valley and Emerson faults, but
lacks the resolution to determine the details of the trans-
fer of slip between these two subparallel and overlapping
faults. The release of significant moment on multiple faults
suggests that the upper crust in this region was very close
to the point of failure. By similar reasoning, the stop-
page of the rupture in the middle of the Camp Rock fault
was due to a low pre-earthquake stress in that region,
which could also explain the lack of aftershocks on the
northern Camp Rock fault. The proximity to failure and
the demonstrated ability to rupture multiple faults in a
single event suggest that earthquake hazards in areas with
multiple active, but short, faults need to be reevaluated.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to all of the institutions which collected raw GPS
data in the Landers area, and graciously allowed others to analyze it.
Also, we thank Duncan Agnew (Scripps Institution of Oceanography)
for collecting postearthquake data at some of the GIMMS sites. Ye-
huda Bock (Scripps) and the Scripps GPS data archive helped us in
obtaining the Caltrans HPGN data (and, equally important, the site
documentation). Bob Simpson (USGS) provided software for plotting
the slip distributions. We thank Duncan Agnew for a helpful review.
J. Freymueller, N. E. King, and P. SegaU
References
Arnadottir, T. (1993). Earthquake dislocation models derived from
inversion of geodetic data, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University,
Stanford, California.
Blewitt, G., M. Heflin, K. Hurst, D. Jefferson, F. Webb, and J.
Zumberge (1993). Absolute far-field displacements from the 28
June 1992 Landers earthquake sequence, Nature 361, 340-342.
Beroza, G. (1991). Near-source modeling of the Loma Prieta earth-
quake: evidence for heterogeneous slip and implications for
earthquake hazard, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 81, 1603-1621.
Boek, Y., D. Agnew, P. Fang, J. Genrich, B. Hager, T. Herring,
K. Hudnut, R. King, S. Larsen, J. Minster, K. Stark, S. Wdow-
inski, and F. Wyatt (1993). Detection of crustal deformation from
the Landers earthquake sequence using continuous geodetic mea-
surements, Nature 361, 337-340.
Cohee, B. and G. Beroza (1994). An extended source model for the
1992 Landers mainshock from near-source seismograms, Bull.
Seism. Soc. Am. (in press).
Dokka, R. (1983). Displacements on late CeCenozoic strike-slip faults
of the central Mojave Desert, California, Geology 11,305-308.
Dokka, R. and C. Travis (1990a). Late Cenozoic strike-slip faulting
in the Mojave Desert, California, Tectonics 9, 311-340.
Dokka, R. and C. Travis (1990b). Role of the Eastern California Shear
Zone in accommodating Pacific-North American plate motion,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 1323-1326.
Du, Y., A. Aydin, and P. Segall (1992). Comparison of various in-
version techniques as applied to the determination of a geo-
physical deformation model for the 1983 Borah Peak earthquake,
Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 82, 1840-1866.
Georgiadou, Y. and A. Kleusberg (1988). On the effect on iono-
spheric delay on geodetic relative GPS positioning, Manuscripta
Geodetica 13, 1-8.
Harris, R. and P. Segall (1987). Detection of a locked zone at depth
on the Parkfield, California, segment of the San Andreas fault,
J. Geophys. Res. 92, 7945-7962.
Hauksson, E., L. M. Jones, K. Hutton, and D. Eberhart-Phillips (1993).
The 1992 Landers earthquake sequence: seismological obser-
vations, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 19835-19858.
Hill, D. P., P. A. Reasenberg, A. Michael, W. J. Arabaz, G. Beroza,
D. Brumbaugh, D. N. Brune, R. Castro, S. Davis, D. dePolo,
W. L. Ellsworth, J. Gomberg, S. Marmsen, L. House, S. M.
Jackson, M. J. S. Johnston, L. Jones, R. Keller, S. Malone, L.
Munguia, S. Nava, J. C. Pechmann, A. Sanford, R. W. Simp-
son, R. B. Smith, M. Stark, M. Stickney, A. Vidal, S. Walter,
V. Wug, and J. Zollweg (1993). Seismicity in the western United
States remotely triggered by the M 7.4 Landers, California,
earthquake of June 28, 1992, Science 260, 1617-1623.
Hough, S. E., J. Mori, E. Sembera, G; Glassmoyer, C. Mueller, and
S. Lydeen (1993). Southern surface rupture associated with the
1992 M 7.4 Landers earthquake: did it all happen during the
mainshock? Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 2615-2618.
Hudnut, K. W., Y. Bock, M. Cline, P. Fang, Y. Feng, J. Frey-
mueller, X. Ge, W. K. Gross, D. Jackson, M. Kim, N. E. King,
J. Langbein, S. C. Lax'sen, M. Lisowski, Z. K. Shen, and J.
Svarc, and J. Zhang (1993). Coseismie displacements of the 1992
Landers earthquake sequence, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 84, no. 3,
625-645.
Jones, L. E. and S. Hough (1993). Rupture characteristics of the June
28, 1992 Big Bear event inferred from TERRAscope data, EOS
74, Spring Meeting Suppl:, 214.
Jones, L. E. and D. V. Helmberger (1993). Source parameters of the
1992 Big Bear earthquake sequence, EOS 74, Spring Meeting
Suppl., 215.
Kanamori, H., H.-K. Thio, D. Dreger, E. Hauksson, arid T. Heaton
(1992). Initial investigation of the Landers, California. Earth-
The Co-Seismic Slip Distribution o f the Landers Earthquake 659

quake of 28 June 1992 using TERRAscope, Geophys. Res. Lett. geodetic data and the testing of geophysical deformation models,
19, 2267-2270. J. Geophys. Res. 93, 14954-14966.
Matthews, M. and P. Segall (1993). Statistical inversion of crustal Sieh, K., L. Jones, E. Hauksson, K. Hudnut, D. Eberhart-Phillips,
deformation data and estimation of the depth distribution of slip T. Heaton, S. Hough, K. Hutton, H. Kanamori, A. Lilje, S.
in the 1906 earthquake, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 12153-12163. Lindvall, S. McGill, J. Mori, C. Rubin, J. Spotila, J. Stock,
Murray, M. H., J. C. Savage, M. Lisowski, and W. K. Gross (1993). H.-K. Thio, J. Treiman, B. Wernicke, and J. Zachariasen (1993).
Coseismic displacements: 1992 Landers, California, Earthquake, Near-field investigations of the Landers earthquake sequence, April
Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 623-626. to July 1992, Science 260, 171-176.
Ponti, D. (1993). Quaternary chronostratigraphy and deformation his- Wald, D. and T. Heaton (1994). Spatial and temporal distribution of
tory, Los Angeles Basin, California in National Earthquake slip for the 1992 Landers, California earthquake, Bull. Seism.
Hazards Reduction Program, Summaries of Technical Reports Soc. Am. 84, no. 3, 668-691.
Volume XXXIV, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 93-195, 591.
Savage, J. C., M. Lisowski, and M. Murray (1993). Deformation Department of Geophysics
from 1973 through 1991 in the epicentral area of the 1992 Lan- Stanford University
ders, California, earthquake, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 19951-19958. Stanford, California 94305
Savage, J. C. and W. H. Prescott (1973). Precision of Geodolite dis- (J.F., P.S.)
tance measurements for determining fault movements, J. Geo-
phys. Res. 78, 6001-6008.
Savage, J. C., M. Lisowski, and W. H. Prescott (1990). An apparent U.S. Geological Survey
shear zone trending north-northwest across the Mojave Desert Menlo Park, California 94025
into Owens Valley, eastern California, Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, (N.K.)
2113-2116.
Segall, P. and M. Matthews (1988). Displacement calculations from Manuscript received 29 July 1993.