This page provides rough outlines on the current progress on Cybershake in NZ.
Note that his page is for internal sharing purposes only, it is likely inaccurate and out-of-date, and therefore it is advised to conduct researchers directly if you want more reliable information
| Version | Num sources | SRF generation | VM domain | VM generation | Simulation specs | Recording stations | Estimated core-hours | Actual core hours | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| v17.8 | 15 (dominant in Canterbury) | 3 hypo and 2 slip dist per source | automated based on PGV>5cm/s; 15kmRup, 5km land cutoff Default depth and duration scaling | 0.4km regular grid, Vs_min=500 | Transition freq = 0.25Hz | 19,604 (virtual + Geonet stations) | ~3k Fitzroy | First implementation; Focus on running workflow and comparison with empirically-derived hazard curves | |
| v17.9 + v18p4 | ~ (South Island) | hypo every 20 km along strike, 3 slip dist per source | as v17.8 | as for v17.8 | as for v17.8 | 19,604 (virtual + Geonet stations) | -- hours on Kupe | Focus on extending number off sources and srf uncertainties | |
v18.5 | 251 North Island faults | Same as v17.9 | as for v17.9 | as for v17.9 | as for v17.9 | 19,604 (virtual + Geonet stations) | -- hours on Kupe | Running for the North Island sources to merge with 18p4 (and 17p9) to have a nation-wide hazard results | |
v18p6 | 483 sources across NZ | Magnitude-dependantnumber of realizations one slip distribution per hypocentre Leonard magnitude scaling | Pgv threshold of 2 cm/s | as for v17.9 | as for v17.9 | 27,481 (virtual + Geonet stations) | 150 k on Kupe |
| |
| v19p5 | 472 sources across NZ (removed some due to land VM area / DEM) | Same as v18p6 | Same as v18p6 | as for v17.9 | as for v17.9 | same as v18p6 | 700k CH on maui | New gmsim version. Specifically changes in HF Updated to Kevin's 19p1 vs30 model | |
| v20p4 | 478 sources across NZ | Magnitude-dependantnumber of realizations one slip distribution per hypocentre leonard magnitude scaling + monte carlo magnitude uncertanity | 2 cm/s DEM extent increase + off-shore basin VM Size decreased based on depth of rupture sim duration changed to account for surface arrival times 2.03 | as for v17.9 | as for v17.9 HF DT 0.01 upsampling to 0.005 for BB | 25948 (virtual + Geonet stations) | 230k CH on maui | ||
| v20p5 | 8 Subduction Sources across NZ | same as v20p4 | same as v20p4 with: Reduced PGV threshold to 3 cm/s | as for v17.9 | as for v17.9 | Same as v20p4 | 170k CH on maui | ||
| v20p6 | same as v20p4 | same as v20p4 | same as v20p4 | 0.2 km regular grid vsmin 0.5 | Transition Freq 0.5Hz | Same as v20p4 | |||
| v20p9 | Same as v20p5 | same as v20p4 | same as v20p5 | same as v20p6 | same as v20p6 | same as v20p4 | |||
| v21p1+v21p6 | same as v20p4 | same as v20p4 + VM perturbations per realisation | 0.1 km regular grid, vsmin 0.5 | Transition Freq 1Hz | Same as v20p4 |
To do list:
Refer to this sub-page for the list of to-do items for Cyberhshake:
Ideas for future implementations (no particular order):
- Bootstrap sampling to understand how many ruptures are needed for a given source
- Source uncertainties (currently slip and hypo; but need to add uncertainty in G&P parametrization).
- Velocity model uncertainties (random pertubations).
- Explicit modelling of subduction zone sources in Cybershake
- Neural Net for GMM trained with CS and validation results in order to use for distributed seismicity
- New velocity model (i.e. with more basins)
- Velocity model with tomographic refinement
- Velocity model with site-specific 1D for HF method
- Logic tree for hazard to consider different ground motion models (both empirical and simulated). Weights for models are determined based on a neural net fit to the data in which all models start with uniform weight and the weights are then determined as a function of site location, magnitude, source to site distance etc. Location component can be part of a convNet.
- Ongoing improvements to the simulation code (topo, plasticity etc)
- Paper which shows the theoretical benefits of forward simulation and domain optimization in terms of minimum total computation vs. recriprocity.
- Consider other ERFs (i.e. not just Stirling et al 2012); UCERF3 method applied to NZ; RSQSim applied to NZ.
- Extraction of deagg, and gm selection for a conditional IM hazard/im value.