Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

This

...

Note that his page is for internal sharing purposes only, it is likely inaccurate and out-of-date, and therefore it is advised to conduct researchers directly if you want more reliable information

...

3 hypo and 2 slip dist per source

...

automated based on PGV>5cm/s; 15kmRup, 5km land cutoff

...

19,604

(virtual + Geonet stations)

...

First implementation;

Focus on running workflow and comparison with empirically-derived hazard curves

...

hypo every 20 km along strike,

3 slip dist per source

...

19,604

(virtual + Geonet stations)

...

v18.5

...

as for v17.9

 

...

19,604

(virtual + Geonet stations)

...

 

 

...

is the front page for the Cybershake NZ project, describing the corresponding computational and scientific components.

An outline of the  project, a table to compare the main features of different versions, and ideas for future implementations are presented here: Ouline
A step-by-step manual to run a version of Cybeshake is here: Manual


Other contents will be added until 5th Dec 2018......

...

v18p6

 

...

Magnitude-dependant number of realizations

one slip distribution per hypocentre

...

Pgv threshold of 2 cm/s

...

as for v17.9

...

27,481  

(virtual + Geonet stations)

...

  • Monte Carlo hypocentre realizations
  • Variation in hypocentre location along the strike and dip directions

...

To do list:

Refer to this sub-page for the list of to-do items for Cyberhshake: 

Cybershake to-do list

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.