Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 465

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Coseismic Deformation from the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine, California, Earthquake as Inferred from InSAR and GPS Observations

Simons, M.·2002·Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Abstract

We use interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) and Global Positioning System (GPS) observations to investigate static deformation due to the 1999 M_w 7.1 Hector Mine earthquake, that occurred in the eastern California shear zone. Interferometric decorrelation, phase, and azimuth offset measurements indicate regions of surface and near-surface slip, which we use to constrain the geometry of surface rupture. The inferred geometry is spatially complex, with multiple strands. The southern third of the rupture zone consists of three subparallel segments extending about 20 km in length in a N45°W direction. The central segment is the simplest, with a single strand crossing the Bullion Mountains and a strike of N10°W. The northern third of the rupture zone is characterized by multiple splays, with directions subparallel to strikes in the southern and central. The average strike for the entire rupture is about N30°W. The interferograms indicate significant along-strike variations in strain which are consistent with variations in the ground-based slip measurements. Using a variable resolution data sampling routine to reduce the computational burden, we invert the InSAR and GPS data for the fault geometry and distribution of slip. We compare results from assuming an elastic half-space and a layered elastic space. Results from these two elastic models are similar, although the layered-space model predicts more slip at depth than does the half-space model. The layered model predicts a maximum coseismic slip of more than 5 m at a depth of 3 to 6 km. Contrary to preliminary reports, the northern part of the Hector Mine rupture accommodates the maximum slip. Our model predictions for the surface fault offset and total seismic moment agree with both field mapping results and recent seismic models. The inferred shallow slip deficit is enigmatic and may suggest that distributed inelastic yielding occurred in the uppermost few kilometers of the crust during or soon after the earthquake.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1785/0120000933

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 465

Metadata

Authors
Simons, M.
Venue
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Published
2002-05-01
Volume
92
Issue
4
Pages
1390-1402
ISSN
0037-1106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2146564568
Cited by
465
References
7
FWCI
7.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Coseismic Deformation from the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine, California, Earthquake as Inferred from InSAR and GPS Observations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1785/0120000933
The paper
Simons, M. (2002). Coseismic Deformation from the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine, California, Earthquake as Inferred from InSAR and GPS Observations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000933

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.