You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 20 Next »

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Note that his page is for internal sharing purposes only, it is likely inaccurate and out-of-date, and therefore it is advised to conduct researchers directly if you want more reliable information

VersionNum sourcesSRF generationVM domainVM generationSimulation specsRecording stationsEstimated core-hoursActual core hoursNotes
v17.815 (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=500Transition 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 v17.8as for v17.8as for v17.8

19,604

(virtual + Geonet stations)

-- hours on Kupe Focus on extending number of sources and srf uncertianties

v18.5

251 North Island faultsSame as v17.9

as for v17.9

 

as for v17.9as 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-dependant number of realizations

one slip distribution per hypocentre

Pgv threshold of 2 cm/s

as for v17.9

as for v17.9

27,481  

(virtual + Geonet stations)

150 k on Kupe 
  • Monte Carlo hypocentre realizations
  • Variation in hypocentre location along the strike and dip directions
v ??         

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Verification process:

  • Fault rupture (SRF) files:

  • Source plot on the map

  • Length-dependent hypocenter location (done)

  • Different slip distribution realizations (done)
  • Velocity model (VM) files:

  • Velocity model plot on the map (done)

  • Rotation and reduction in size to minimize the ocean coverage (done)

  • Generate a code to check VM files (done)
    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:

  • Verification code for param files for SRFs and VMs (e.g., transition frequency, grid size) (in-progress)

  • Config file for batch submission of the simulations (in-progress)

  • Wall clock and number of cores estimations (in-progress)

  • Automated check to see if the runs for LF, HF, and BB are done successfully (in-progress)

Post-processing:

  • Automated IM plot on the map for all simulations (in-progress)

  • Automated standard post-processing for all simulations (in-progress)

  • Hazard curve calculations from simulated ground motions (in-progress)

  • Empirical hazard calculations (in-progress)

  • Comparison and combination of the simulated and empirical hazard analyses (in-progress)

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.  ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • No labels