UGMS Validation: Difference between revisions
From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "CyberShake validation efforts are underway for the UGMS. We have identified ERF 36, source 64, rupture 3 as the best fit for the ShakeOut scenario (S. San Andreas;CH+CC+BB+NM..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
We will look at IM values at the 336 CyberShake sites from Study 15.4 for 3 rupture variations: | We will look at IM values at the 336 CyberShake sites from Study 15.4 for 3 rupture variations: | ||
*southern, 199 (34.3544, -117.6388, 7.9 km) | *southern, 199 (34.3544, -117.6388, 7.9 km): [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/southern_rupture.csv IM Values] | ||
*central, 223 (35.0037, -119.4943, 8.1 km) | *central, 223 (35.0037, -119.4943, 8.1 km): [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/central_rupture.csv IM Values] | ||
*northern, 67 (35.709, -120.258, 6.7 km) | *northern, 67 (35.709, -120.258, 6.7 km): [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/northern_rupture.csv IM Values] | ||
To aid in plotting, we pulled out the uppermost points on this rupture into a file [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/64_3_surface.txt here]. | To aid in plotting, we pulled out the uppermost points on this rupture into a file [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/64_3_surface.txt here]. | ||
Latest revision as of 22:33, 14 March 2016
CyberShake validation efforts are underway for the UGMS.
We have identified ERF 36, source 64, rupture 3 as the best fit for the ShakeOut scenario (S. San Andreas;CH+CC+BB+NM+SM, M7.85).
We will look at IM values at the 336 CyberShake sites from Study 15.4 for 3 rupture variations:
- southern, 199 (34.3544, -117.6388, 7.9 km): IM Values
- central, 223 (35.0037, -119.4943, 8.1 km): IM Values
- northern, 67 (35.709, -120.258, 6.7 km): IM Values
To aid in plotting, we pulled out the uppermost points on this rupture into a file here.
