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Note that his page is for internal sharing purposes only, it is likely inaccurate and out-of-date, and therefore it is advised to conduct researchers directly if you want more reliable information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

...

 

 

...

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

...

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

Verification process:

...

Fault rupture (SRF) files:

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

An Outline of the  project which includes a table to compare the main features of different versions are presented: Outline
Ideas for future implementations are presented here: Outline
A step-by-step manual to run a version of Cybeshake is presented here: Cybershake Run Manual
Cybershake uses national hazard model file. The corrections applied to this file is presented here: Corrections applied to the base NHM fault file
Details of the important runs of Cybershake are presented Cybershake v18.6   and  Cybershake v17.8
A high-level to do list is presented here: Cybershake to-do list

...

Velocity model (VM) files:

...

  1. Check if given VM parameter (folder path) exists
  2. .p, .s, .d and params_vel.py files must exist
  3.  warns if model_params/coords/bounds etc don't exist using params_vel sufx in filename
  4.  params_vel matching hh/xlen vs nx for x, y, z
  5. file size = nx * ny * nz * 4 bytes, checked for .p, .s, .d
  6. if numpy available: checks first xz slice for >0 and not NaN in .p, .s, .d

Simulation process:

...

Post-processing:

...

Prioritization:

To do now:

  1. Automated IM plot on the map for all simulations 
  2. Automated standard post-processing for all simulations 
  3. Hazard curve calculations from simulated ground motions
  4. Empirical hazard calculations 

To do before v17.9:

  1. Config file for batch submission of the simulations 
  2. Verification code for param files for SRFs and VMs (e.g., transition frequency, grid size)
  3. Wall clock and number of cores estimations
  4. Automated check to see if the runs for LF, HF, and BB are done successfully 
  5. Comparison and combination of the simulated and empirical hazard analyses

To do, but no timeline for completion:

  1.  ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...