Supplementary Figure Caption
Figure S1-4: Highlighted inversion results generated using the Cut-and-Paste (CAP)
method based on the 1D velocity model shown in Table S1. The ten stations selected are
within an epicentral distance of 300 km. Figures S1-4 are inversions of the same set of
stations with frequency bands up to 0.05, 0.1, 0.25 and 1 Hz respectively.
Figure S5: (A) Fractional mismatch for the range of focal depths tested. Results indicate
that 53 km and 50 km are the best focal depth determined for E1 and E2. (B)
Bootstrapping analysis on stations selected for CAP inversion. Standard deviation of all
three parameters ranges within 1.5°.
Figure S6: Comparison of E1 broadband displacement data and EGFs at two of the
nearest stations HRO and KSN (vertical and tangential components respectively). This is
the rupture simulation with the lowest average misfit error (rupture length: 8 km, rupture
velocity 4.5 km/s).
Figure S7: Comparison of E1 broadband velocity data and EGFs at two of the nearest
stations HRO and KSN (tangential and vertical components respectively). This is the
rupture simulation with the lowest average misfit error (rupture length: 9 km, rupture
velocity 4.5 km/s).
Figure S8: This is Figure 10 in Huang et al., 2013, showing the along-dip distribution of
final slip and static stress drop assumed in the dynamic rupture model.
Table S1: 1D crustal model for the region studied.
Table S2: Simulation results based on displacement data. Best resolved rupture distance
and velocity are 8 km and 4.5 km/s respectively. l2 = ||EGF-E1||2. cc is the crosscorrelation value of the S phases (SV, SH). The average misfit error is the summation of
all components’ l2 weighted by their corresponding cc.
Table S3: Simulation results based on velocity data. Best resolved rupture distance and
velocity are 9 km and 4.5 km/s respectively, which are consistent with the results from
using displacement data.