CyberShake Study 24.8 - Revision history

Scottcal: /* Workflow Invocation */

2026-10-10T06:17:32Z

Workflow Invocation

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:17, 10 October 2026
Line 1,373:		Line 1,373:
	SGT invocation:		SGT invocation:

	$> ./create_sgt_dax.sh -s ~~<site>~~ -v v246 -e 64 -r 10 -g 8 -f 1.0 -q 2.0 -bb --~~server moment~~.~~usc.edu~~ -~~dep 50~~.0 -hf 0.25 -mv 400~~.0 -rt "-36.0" -et ifless -td 700~~.0 -tm sfcvm,cca,bbp1d -sp 0.08 -z -hd -lv		$> ./create_sgt_dax.sh -s s3365 -v v246 -e 64 -r 10 -g 8 -f 1.0 -q 2.0 --sgtargs -dep 50.0 -et ifless -td 700.0 -hf 0.25 -mv 400.0 -tm sfcvm,cca,bbp1d -sp 0.08 -z -hd -lv -rt '-36.0' --server moment

	PP invocation:		PP invocation:

Scottcal at 06:32, 8 October 2026

2026-10-08T06:32:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:32, 8 October 2026
Line 1,366:		Line 1,366:

	362 bytes/entry * 35 entries/event (10 det + 25 stoch) * 206,500 events/site * 315 sites = 768 GB. The drive on moment-carc with the mysql database has 6.6 TB free.		362 bytes/entry * 35 entries/event (10 det + 25 stoch) * 206,500 events/site * 315 sites = 768 GB. The drive on moment-carc with the mysql database has 6.6 TB free.

			== Workflow Invocation ==

			These workflows were run in separate pieces.

			SGT invocation:

			$> ./create_sgt_dax.sh -s <site> -v v246 -e 64 -r 10 -g 8 -f 1.0 -q 2.0 -bb --server moment.usc.edu -dep 50.0 -hf 0.25 -mv 400.0 -rt "-36.0" -et ifless -td 700.0 -tm sfcvm,cca,bbp1d -sp 0.08 -z -hd -lv

			PP invocation:

			$> ./create_pp_wf.sh -s <site> -v v246 -e 64 -r 10 -g 8 -f 1.0 -q 2.0 --ppargs -ds -nb -r -du -dbrs -sp 0.08 -z -hd -pd

			Stochastic invocation:

			$> ./create_stoch_wf.sh -l <low-frequency run ID> -e 64 -r 10 -f 1.0 -s <site> --daxargs --h_fraction 0.25 -mf 1.0 -sf 50.0 -dbrs -nls -pd --hf_vel_model nocal -z

	== Lessons Learned ==		== Lessons Learned ==

Scottcal: /* Data Products */

2026-08-26T04:34:53Z

Data Products

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:34, 26 August 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	== Data Products ==		== Data Products ==

	Low-frequency hazard maps are available here: [https://opensha.~~usc.edu~~/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_lf/hazard_maps/ Low-frequency Hazard Maps].		Low-frequency hazard maps are available here: [https://data.opensha.org/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_lf/hazard_maps/ Low-frequency Hazard Maps].

	Low-frequency GMM comparisons are available here, using [https://opensha.~~usc.edu~~/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_lf/gmpe_comparisons_NGAWest_2014_NoIdr_Vs30Simulation/ top velocity mesh value as Vs30] and [https://opensha.~~usc.edu~~/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_lf/gmpe_comparisons_NGAWest_2014_NoIdr_Vs30Thompson2020/ Thompson Vs30].		Low-frequency GMM comparisons are available here, using [https://data.opensha.org/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_lf/gmpe_comparisons_NGAWest_2014_NoIdr_Vs30Simulation/ top velocity mesh value as Vs30] and [https://data.opensha.org/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_lf/gmpe_comparisons_NGAWest_2014_NoIdr_Vs30Thompson2020/ Thompson Vs30].

	Broadband hazard maps are available here: [https://opensha.~~usc.edu~~/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_bb/hazard_maps/ Broadband Hazard Maps].		Broadband hazard maps are available here: [https://data.opensha.org/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_bb/hazard_maps/ Broadband Hazard Maps].

	Broadband GMM comparisons are available here: [https://opensha.~~usc.edu~~/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_bb/gmpe_comparisons_NGAWest_2014_NoIdr_Vs30Thompson2020/ Broadband GMM Comparisons].		Broadband GMM comparisons are available here: [https://data.opensha.org/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_bb/gmpe_comparisons_NGAWest_2014_NoIdr_Vs30Thompson2020/ Broadband GMM Comparisons].

	Updated statewide maps using Study 24.8 and Study 22.12 results are available here: [https://opensha.~~usc.edu~~/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_lf/multi_study_hazard_maps/resources/ 2025 Statewide Maps].		Updated statewide maps using Study 24.8 and Study 22.12 results are available here: [https://data.opensha.org/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_lf/multi_study_hazard_maps/resources/ 2025 Statewide Maps].

	== Science Goals ==		== Science Goals ==

Scottcal: /* Data Products */

2025-10-01T16:47:03Z

Data Products

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 1 October 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Broadband GMM comparisons are available here: [https://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_bb/gmpe_comparisons_NGAWest_2014_NoIdr_Vs30Thompson2020/ Broadband GMM Comparisons].		Broadband GMM comparisons are available here: [https://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_bb/gmpe_comparisons_NGAWest_2014_NoIdr_Vs30Thompson2020/ Broadband GMM Comparisons].

			Updated statewide maps using Study 24.8 and Study 22.12 results are available here: [https://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_24_8_lf/multi_study_hazard_maps/resources/ 2025 Statewide Maps].

	== Science Goals ==		== Science Goals ==

Scottcal: /* Lessons Learned */

2025-08-13T18:42:41Z

Lessons Learned

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 13 August 2025
Line 1,366:		Line 1,366:

	== Lessons Learned ==		== Lessons Learned ==
	*The SRFs used in this study weren't quite what was intended; they had subfault relocation on and used a different risetime. Consider running an SRF check before starting the study.		*The SRFs used in this study weren't quite what was intended; they had subfault relocation on and used a different risetime. Consider running an SRF check before starting the study. More details about the subfault perturbation issue are given on the [[CyberShake_Study_22.12#Subfault_Perturbation \| Study 22.12 wiki page]].
	*The runtime requested for post-processing jobs was higher than what was needed, increasing queue times for awhile.		*The runtime requested for post-processing jobs was higher than what was needed, increasing queue times for awhile.
	*The scottcal account went over quota on /home at Frontera, an issue for writing rvGAHP files.		*The scottcal account went over quota on /home at Frontera, an issue for writing rvGAHP files.

Scottcal: /* Background model */

2025-08-05T17:11:52Z

Background model

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 5 August 2025
Line 219:		Line 219:
	=== Background model ===		=== Background model ===

	<b>For Study 24.8, we decided to go with the [[~~NC1D~~]] model, which extends the Sierra region of SFCVM.</b>		<b>For Study 24.8, we decided to go with the [[Sierra Foothills 1D]] model, which extends the Sierra region of SFCVM.</b>

	There are several candidates to use as a background model for the regions outside of the 3D model region.		There are several candidates to use as a background model for the regions outside of the 3D model region.

Scottcal: /* Background model */

2025-08-05T05:30:07Z

Background model

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 5 August 2025
Line 218:		Line 218:

	=== Background model ===		=== Background model ===

			<b>For Study 24.8, we decided to go with the [[NC1D]] model, which extends the Sierra region of SFCVM.</b>

	There are several candidates to use as a background model for the regions outside of the 3D model region.		There are several candidates to use as a background model for the regions outside of the 3D model region.

Scottcal: /* Lessons Learned */

2025-06-04T20:43:02Z

Lessons Learned

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 4 June 2025
Line 1,368:		Line 1,368:
	*The scottcal account went over quota on /home at Frontera, an issue for writing rvGAHP files.		*The scottcal account went over quota on /home at Frontera, an issue for writing rvGAHP files.
	*Due to the lack of support for outgoing connections, there was not an easy way to bundle jobs on Frontier and we ran the SGT jobs individually.		*Due to the lack of support for outgoing connections, there was not an easy way to bundle jobs on Frontier and we ran the SGT jobs individually.
			*Due to an issue with migrating the Study 22.12 changes back to the main Github branch, FP was being overwritten as 0.5 instead of using the 1.0 value from the IN3D file.

	== Stress Test ==		== Stress Test ==

Scottcal: /* Validation */

2025-05-13T05:03:13Z

Validation

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:03, 13 May 2025
Line 707:		Line 707:
	== Validation ==		== Validation ==

	We performed [[validation runs for the Loma Prieta BBP event ~~\| Loma Prieta Validation~~]]		We performed [[Loma Prieta Validation \| validation runs for the Loma Prieta BBP event]].

	== Hazard Curve Tests ==		== Hazard Curve Tests ==

Scottcal at 05:02, 13 May 2025

2025-05-13T05:02:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:02, 13 May 2025
Line 704:		Line 704:

	However, since we are using a denser mesh (80m) and a lower minimum Vs (400 m/s), we will not apply site correction to the low-frequency seismograms before combining. Rob states, <i>You may recall that there is a klugy process we have used to estimate the Vref value based on the Vsmin and grid spacing of the model. But, it has only been applied for the case of h=100 m and Vsmin=500 m/s. What I found here is that estimating Vref using the 80m & 400m/s model is that Vref is almost always less than Vs30 (i.e., Vsite). This means that when the site adjustment is applied, the motions are deamplified. This is why we see such a poor fit for the 3D case when using the estimated Vref values. My conclusion at this point is that if we run the 3D calculation with 80 m grid spacing and Vsmin of 400 m/s (or lower), then we probably do not need to apply any site adjustments.</i>		However, since we are using a denser mesh (80m) and a lower minimum Vs (400 m/s), we will not apply site correction to the low-frequency seismograms before combining. Rob states, <i>You may recall that there is a klugy process we have used to estimate the Vref value based on the Vsmin and grid spacing of the model. But, it has only been applied for the case of h=100 m and Vsmin=500 m/s. What I found here is that estimating Vref using the 80m & 400m/s model is that Vref is almost always less than Vs30 (i.e., Vsite). This means that when the site adjustment is applied, the motions are deamplified. This is why we see such a poor fit for the 3D case when using the estimated Vref values. My conclusion at this point is that if we run the 3D calculation with 80 m grid spacing and Vsmin of 400 m/s (or lower), then we probably do not need to apply any site adjustments.</i>

			== Validation ==

			We performed [[validation runs for the Loma Prieta BBP event \| Loma Prieta Validation]]

	== Hazard Curve Tests ==		== Hazard Curve Tests ==