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

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 24 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Note that his page is for internal sharing purposes only, it is likely inaccurate and out-of-date, and therefore it is advised to conduct researchers directly if you want more reliable information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 ??         

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • No labels