...
Note: the italic items are not implemented yet (17/10/2018), but will be added progressively.
Rupture:
- Magnitude of ruptures
Test 1a): Extract Mw for all ruptures from SRF.info, plot them versus area (i.e. Mw vs Area) and compare them with scaling relationships (e.g. the Leonard relationship (2011- Table 6)). Data should be colored based on the tectonic type (which indicates which scaling relationship should be used)
Pass criterion: if all the data sits on the scaling relationship lines, the magnitude of SRFs are correct. Eventually, this can be automated, but visual examination will be sufficient at present.
Note: Make sure stable continental region (SRC) of is NOT used. Only use DS and SS equations from of Table 6 of Leonard (2011).
Note: SRF.info contains this information (File Formats Used On GM)
Test 1b) Plot Mw of SRf files (i.e., read it from the srf file) versus Leonard Mw
Pass criterion: If the data are on the 1-1 line, the results are consistent. - Number of rupture realizations per source
Test: Plot number of SRF files that exist in the corresponding directory for that given fault as a function of the source Mw (i.e. number of files vs. source Mw). This should be compared with the parametric model that is described (num rup vs. source Mw).
Pass criterion: When rounded to an integer, the values should be in line with the parametric model. Eventually this can be automated, but visual examination will be sufficient at present. - Lower Seismogenic depth
Test: Plot lower seismogenic depth of a given fault from national hazard model (Stirling et al 2012) versus that from SRF.info (i.e. dbottom).
Pass criterion: There should be two clusters of results on the plot. Some results should be on the one-to-one line (i.e., for the ruptures that have seismogenic depth lower than 12km), the other ones should have dbottom values in the SRF.info that are 3 km above the corresponding values from national hazard model.
Note: (Up untill 18p6 version of Cybershake) the 12 km and 2 km values are hard-coded in the SRF generation code. - Spatial distribution of sources across NZ
Test: Plot (on a map) one realization of SRFs generated for all the faults considered in the Cybershake runs. If faults are not included in a Cybershake run, plot the geometry of them with a different color.
Pass criterion: A researcher will look at the plot and search for anomalies in terms of fault geometries. Also, the researcher should see the faults that are not included in the cybershake runs. Spatial distribution of sources across NZ based on tectonic type
Test: Plot (on a map) SRFs colored based on their tectonic type
Pass criterion: A researcher will look at the plot and search for anomalies in terms of tectonic assignment. Also, the researcher should see the faults that are not included in the cybershake runs.
...
Test: Plot the dt from the velocity model params.py files against the hard-coded value and also satisfy this equation (dt < 0.495 * hh / V_max ) from Graves 1996 BSSA
Pass criterion: The plot should show a single point. (so action this test once there are non-trivial values for this)
Note: hh is the grid size of the VM; V_max of the maximum velocity in your VM.
Note: if we have a varying discretization and Vs_max for specific sub-set runs, those values should show on the plot.
Tentative items for future verification tasks:
- Slip realization: random seed; mean slip; max slip
- Magnitude realizations of a given fault.
- Stress drop for realizations of a given fault
- site-specific kappa value
- Vs, Vp, rho min, mean, and max values for realizations of the velocity mode
- Rupture velocity
- Rise time
- Rake
- Path duration for HF simulation
- Time window length for HF simulation
- Campbell and Bozirgnia site amplification values (i.e., site_fmin, site_fmidbot)
- ...
...