https://strike.scec.org/scecpedia/CyberShake_Study_21.12

https://strike.scec.org/scecpedia/CyberShake_Study_18.8

https://strike.scec.org/scecpedia/CyberShake_Study_17.3

https://strike.scec.org/scecpedia/CyberShake_Study_15.12


Structure

The documentation format has changed somewhat since Cybershake Study 17.3.  The recent ones, while flexible, maintain the following structure.

  1. Introduction:  This section provides an overview of the CyberShake study and its objectives.

    1. Status : If it has been completed and when paused/resumed/completed
    2. Data Products: Link to the data produced from the study

  2. Methodology: Describes how the study differs from older studies.

    1. Science Goals : Scientific contribution aimed by the study
    2. Technical Goals : Computational challenges for the study
    3. Sites:  Location of sites studied by the study,  accompanied by a map showing the locations of stations considered.
    4. ERF (Optional) / Faults considered
    5. Velocity Models: The details of Velocity Model
    6. Computning resources utilized: What HPC used, how many nodes? Core hours used etc. 

  3. Results: The results section of each study presents the results of that particular study.

    1. Comparisons of Hazard curves at certain sites
    2. Comparisons of Seismograms against older studies
    3. Velocity model cross section : Similar to NZVM v2.07 vs 2.08: Cross-sections (via NZVM code Link) with horontal plots at various depth level (eg. Link : plot_items over Vp, Vs values)
    4. PSA comparisons , PSA bias etc
    5. Comparision between output from two different HPC systems (Blue Waters vs Titan)
    6. Collection of other plottings produced per requests (eg. posted on slack during verification)

  4. Discussion: This section discusses the results presented in that particular study and their implications.

    1. How the new models developed in the study can be used to improve seismic hazard and risk assessments

    2. Limitations and future directions.

    3. Lessons learned : Mistakes, challenges etc.

  5. Conclusion:

    1. Summary of the main findings related to ground motion hazard and risk based on the new ground motion prediction models developed in that study

    2. Recommendations for future research related to improving these models.



Gap Analysis

We have most tools available to produce documentation similar to SCEC Cybershake pages. 

Some thoughts:

  1. Clear goals  - Science goals specified by research team.
  2. Verfication target:  Based on the goal, what do we expect to see from the new Cybershake runs? 
  3. Plotting tools:
    1. Map plotting of location of multiple faults specified - No standard script available. 
    2. Velocity model cross section : Workflow can be simplified and incorporated into the main visualisation repo
    3. Hazard curves: Our Hazard curves are produced via GMHazard, not readily usable for a new Cybershake runs. 





  • No labels