Auxiliary Material submission for paper
Current plate boundary deformation of the Afar rift from a 3D
velocity field inversion of InSAR and GPS
Carolina Pagli1,2, Hua Wang2, Tim J. Wright3, Eric Calais4 and Elias Lewi5
1
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
2
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
2
Department of Surveying Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
3
COMET, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
4
Ecole Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University, Paris, France
5
IGSSA, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Ethiopia
Journal of Geophysical Research, Solid Earth
The auxiliary materials contain 18 supplementary figures that support analysis and
conclusions presented in the main paper.
Figure captions of the supplementary figures
Figure S1. Time-series of interferograms and perpendicular baselines used in this study. Red
stars mark times of acquisitions and blue lines are interferograms. Red dashed lines are times
of intrusions and eruptions in Dabbahu. Grey dashed line marks the 2008 eruption in AluDalafilla. Intrusions and eruptions are only marked when a track covers the affected areas and
have acquisitions spanning the time of the events.
Figure S2. Removal of the displacement caused by the March 2008 intrusion in Dabbahu
using the cross-correlation method and three independent interferograms of Track
028spanning the time of the intrusion. Three independent shortest interferograms (a-c),
deformation model resulting from applying twice the correlation procedure (d) and residuals
(e-g) interferograms. Acquisition dates of the interferograms are marked in panels a-c. AA
and H give the positions of Ado Ale and Hararo, respectively. The colorbar in a applies to all
panels.
Figure S3. Removal of sudden deformations caused by the intrusion/eruptions in Dabbahu
using the cross-correlation method. Shortest interferograms spanning the sudden event (a, d,
g, j, m, p, s and v) with acquisition dates givena t the bottom of the panel. Deformation
models, after applying the correlation procedure twice, (b, e, h, k, n, q, t and w) and residuals
(c, f, i, l, o, r, u and x) interferograms. All interferograms from Track 028. Dates on top of the
panel give the time of a dike intrusion. AA and H mark the positions of Ado Ale and Hararo,
respectively. The colorbar in a applies to all panels.
Figure S4. Time-series of cumulative displacements in the satellite line-of-sight (LOS) at
Ado Ale (a) and Hararo (b) from Track 028 (blue) and 300 (red). Plus signs show the raw
time-series (including sudden deformations), crosses are the offsets estimated using the crosscorrelation method, and the dots are the raw time-series minus the offsets. The black vertical
lines give the time of dike intrusions and eruptions. Please note that different scales of the yaxis have been used in panel a and b. Positive values indicate range increase.
Figure S5. a) Average 2007-2010 LOS surface velocities of Track 071. Positive values
indicate range increase. b) RMS misfits of the average velocities in a). c) Number of times
each pixel is coherent in the interferograms time-series.
Figure S6. a) Average 2007-2010 LOS surface velocities of Track 028. Positive values
indicate range increase. b) RMS misfits of the average velocities in a). c) Number of times
each pixel is coherent in the interferograms time-series.
Figure S7. a) Average 2007-2010 LOS surface velocities of Track 300. Positive values
indicate range increase. b) RMS misfits of the average velocities in a). c) Number of times
each pixel is coherent in the interferograms time-series.
Figure S8. a) Average 2007-2010 LOS surface velocities of Tracks 321, 278 and 235.
Positive values indicate range increase. b) RMS misfits of the average velocities in a). c)
Number of times each pixel is coherent in the interferograms time-series.
Figure S9. a) Average 2007-2010 LOS surface velocities of Tracks 049 and 006. Positive
values indicate range increase. b) RMS misfits of the average velocities in a). c) Number of
times each pixel is coherent in the interferograms time-series.
Figure S10. Trade off curve between the solution roughness and the weighted rms misfit.
Different values of the smoothing factor are marked by circles. Our preferred smoothing
factor for the three-dimensional inversion is marked with a black dot.
Figure S11. LOS velocities for Tracks 049 and 006 a) observed and b) fitted and c) residual
velocities for the 3D velocity field in Figure 5.
Figure S12. LOS velocities for Tracks 321, 278 and 235 a) observed and b) fitted and c)
residual velocities for the 3D velocity field in Figure 5.
Figure S13. LOS velocities for Tracks 300 a) observed and b) fitted and c) residual velocities
for the 3D velocity field in Figure 5.
Figure S14. LOS velocities for Tracks 028 a) observed and b) fitted and c) residual velocities
for the 3D velocity field in Figure 5.
Figure S15. LOS velocities for Tracks 071 a) observed and b) fitted and c) residual velocities
for the 3D velocity field in Figure 5.
Figure S16. a) Uncertainty of the normal strain rate. b) Uncertainty of the shear strain rate.
Figure S17. a) Uncertainty of the first invariant of the horizontal strain rate tensor. b)
Uncertainty of the maximum horizontal shear strain rate.
Figure S18. a) Uncertainty of the rotations about vertical axis. b) Uncertainty of the rotations
about y-axis. c) Uncertainty of the rotations about x-axis.