UCVM Workshop May 2011: Difference between revisions

From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Newer edit →
Maechlin (talk | contribs)
11,776 edits
Created page with ' == Workshop May 2011 == California State-wide Community Velocity Model (CVM) Development: a State-wide 3D Velocity Model for California Workshop Date: Tuesday 10 May 2011 Wor…'
 
Maechlin (talk | contribs)
11,776 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:




Line 9: Line 8:
Agenda Version: 8 May 2011
Agenda Version: 8 May 2011


1. We plan to hold two CVM development workshops via teleconference calls prior to the next SCEC Annual Meeting (which will be held Sept 11-14, 2011).
#We plan to hold two CVM development workshops via teleconference calls prior to the next SCEC Annual Meeting (which will be held Sept 11-14, 2011).
1.1. First CVM workshop to discuss and establish CVM development goals (10 May 2011)
##First CVM workshop to discuss and establish CVM development goals (10 May 2011)
1.2. Second CVM workshop to discuss CVM development plans (week of June 13, 2011)
##Second CVM workshop to discuss CVM development plans (week of June 13, 2011)
 
#Several trends are pushing SCEC towards development of state-wide models:
2. Several trends are pushing SCEC towards development of state-wide models:
##State-wide Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) development
2.1. State-wide Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) development
##CISN and ANSS
2.2. CISN and ANSS
##Operational Earthquake Forecasting
2.3. Operational Earthquake Forecasting
##Simulation for large California regions
2.4. Simulation for large California regions
##SCEC4 goals
2.5. SCEC4 goals
##Statewide wave propagation-based PSHA calculations (CyberShake)
2.6. Statewide wave propagation-based PSHA calculations (CyberShake)
#SCEC context supporting development of state-wide CVM
 
##SCEC’s long standing scientific goal of compatible, integrated, computational structural models to support seismic hazard computational models including fault stress models, dynamic rupture simulations, wave propagation models, earthquake simulators:
3. SCEC context supporting development of state-wide CVM
###CVM
3.1. SCEC’s long standing scientific goal of compatible, integrated, computational structural models to support seismic hazard computational models including fault stress models, dynamic rupture simulations, wave propagation models, earthquake simulators:
###CFM
3.1.1.1. CVM
###Block Model
3.1.1.2. CFM
###Crustal Motion Model
3.1.1.3. Block Model
##UCERF2.0 development
3.1.1.4. Crustal Motion Model
##UCERF3.0 development
3.2. UCERF2.0 development
##Release of multiple southern California CVM’s (CVM-S4 and CVM-H 11.2)
3.3. UCERF3.0 development
##Introduction of alternative Geotechnical layer models-based on Vs30
3.4. Release of multiple southern California CVM’s (CVM-S4 and CVM-H 11.2)
#Review of CVM User Communities to be considered:
3.5. Introduction of alternative Geotechnical layer models-based on Vs30
##High frequency wave propagation simulations (>1Hz)
 
##Low frequency wave propagation simulations (< 1Hz)
4. Review of CVM User Communities to be considered:
##Dynamic rupture modeling
4.1. High frequency wave propagation simulations (>1Hz)
##Seismic hazard PSHA calculations
4.2. Low frequency wave propagation simulations (< 1Hz)
##Others to be considered?
4.3. Dynamic rupture modeling
#Discussion of Capabilities of Proposed state-wide CVM
4.4. Seismic hazard PSHA calculations
##Region to be covered
4.5. Others to be considered?
##What features will it have (GTL, bathymetry, topography)
 
##What users will is support
5. Discussion of Capabilities of Proposed state-wide CVM
##Resolution
5.1. Region to be covered
##Expression of uncertainty
5.2. What features will it have (GTL, bathymetry, topography)
##Arbitrary precision
5.3. What users will is support
##Expression of maximum useful frequency or resolution
5.4. Resolution
#Model construction, implementation, and delivery
5.5. Expression of uncertainty
##New model development
5.6. Arbitrary precision
##Combining or integrating best of existing models
5.7. Expression of maximum useful frequency or resolution
##Management of alternative models
 
##Blending of existing models
6. Model construction, implementation, and delivery
##Delivery of model to end-users
6.1. New model development
##Delivery of model to model-developers
6.2. Combining or integrating best of existing models
#Evaluation of Candidate and Alternative Models
6.3. Management of alternative models
##Proposed use of wave propagation simulations and comparison of seismograms to observations to evaluate alternative models
6.4. Blending of existing models
##Description of existing SCEC CVM evaluation system (developed for CVM-H,CVM-S)
6.5. Delivery of model to end-users
##Additional capabilities needed in an automated testing system which can repeat the same simulation and same evaluation tests with alternative models
6.6. Delivery of model to model-developers
##Selection of goodness of fit metrics
 
##Selection of goodness reference earthquakes distributed around the state and associated observational datasets
7. Evaluation of Candidate and Alternative Models
##Level of support by SCEC for alternative models
7.1. Proposed use of wave propagation simulations and comparison of seismograms to observations to evaluate alternative models
#Review of existing models  
7.2. Description of existing SCEC CVM evaluation system (developed for CVM-H,CVM-S)
##CVM-S4 (Magistrale)
7.3. Additional capabilities needed in an automated testing system which can repeat the same simulation and same evaluation tests with alternative models
##CVM-S4 3D inversion update (Chen)
7.4. Selection of goodness of fit metrics
##CVM-H 11.2 (Shaw)
7.5. Selection of goodness reference earthquakes distributed around the state and associated observational datasets
##CVM-H-based Central California update (Tape)
7.6. Level of support by SCEC for alternative models
##USGS Central California Model (Aagaard)
 
##Lin-Thurber state-wide model (Lin)
8. Review of existing models  
##Hauksson model (Hauksson)
8.1. CVM-S4 (Magistrale)
##Graves Mendicino Model (Graves)
8.2. CVM-S4 3D inversion update (Chen)
##Thurber Northern California Model (Thurber)
8.3. CVM-H 11.2 (Shaw)
##Reno Nevada Model (Magistrale)
8.4. CVM-H-based Central California update (Tape)
##Las Vegas Nevada Model (Magistrale)
8.5. USGS Central California Model (Aagaard)
#External Groups with CVM Development Tools, Interests, Capabilities
8.6. Lin-Thurber state-wide model (Lin)
##IRIS
8.7. Hauksson model (Hauksson)
##USGS
8.8. Graves Mendicino Model (Graves)
##Others?
8.9. Thurber Northern California Model (Thurber)
#Technical Development Approach
8.10. Reno Nevada Model (Magistrale)
##Development of CVM software:
8.11. Las Vegas Nevada Model (Magistrale)
##UCVM software is intended to support statewide-CVM development.
 
##Supports standardized interface that can access multiple underlying models
9. External Groups with CVM Development Tools, Interests, Capabilities
###CVM-S4
9.1. IRIS
###CVM-H 11.2
9.2. USGS
###USGS Central California Model
9.3. Others?
###Lin-Thurber
 
###1D background models
10. Technical Development Approach
###Supports state-wide topography, bathymetry models
10.1. Development of CVM software:
###Supports application of state-wide geotechnical layer based on Wills/Wald Vs30
10.2. UCVM software is intended to support statewide-CVM development.
###Supports creation and delivery of etree models
10.3. Supports standardized interface that can access multiple underlying models
###Supports query by depth and query by elevation
10.3.1. CVM-S4
###Supports creation of large meshes
10.3.2. CVM-H 11.2
# Tools required for Model Development
10.3.3. USGS Central California Model
## Automated CVM evaluation capabilities using wave propagation simulations
10.3.4. Lin-Thurber
## Mesh construction
10.3.5. 1D background models
## Combining alternative models (e.g. Lin-Thurber with CVM-H 11.2)
10.4. Supports state-wide topography, bathymetry models
## Mesh slices and profiles
10.5. Supports application of state-wide geotechnical layer based on Wills/Wald Vs30
## Model volume visualization
10.6. Supports creation and delivery of etree models
## Migration between existing model formats (USGS e-tree, Gocad voxels, CVM-S objects, Lin-Thurber tables)
10.7. Supports query by depth and query by elevation
# Software development activities and priorities
10.8. Supports creation of large meshes
## Discussion of current UCVM capabilities
 
## Discussion of software development priorities
10. Tools required for Model Development
10.1. Automated CVM evaluation capabilities using wave propagation simulations
10.2. Mesh construction
10.3. Combining alternative models (e.g. Lin-Thurber with CVM-H 11.2)
10.4. Mesh slices and profiles
10.5. Model volume visualization
10.6. Migration between existing model formats (USGS e-tree, Gocad voxels, CVM-S objects, Lin-Thurber tables)
 
11. Software development activities and priorities
11.1. Discussion of current UCVM capabilities
11.2. Discussion of software development priorities

Revision as of 17:29, 11 July 2011


Workshop May 2011

California State-wide Community Velocity Model (CVM) Development: a State-wide 3D Velocity Model for California

Workshop Date: Tuesday 10 May 2011 Workshop Time: 9:30am – 11:00am (90 minutes) Agenda Version: 8 May 2011

  1. We plan to hold two CVM development workshops via teleconference calls prior to the next SCEC Annual Meeting (which will be held Sept 11-14, 2011).
    1. First CVM workshop to discuss and establish CVM development goals (10 May 2011)
    2. Second CVM workshop to discuss CVM development plans (week of June 13, 2011)
  2. Several trends are pushing SCEC towards development of state-wide models:
    1. State-wide Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) development
    2. CISN and ANSS
    3. Operational Earthquake Forecasting
    4. Simulation for large California regions
    5. SCEC4 goals
    6. Statewide wave propagation-based PSHA calculations (CyberShake)
  3. SCEC context supporting development of state-wide CVM
    1. SCEC’s long standing scientific goal of compatible, integrated, computational structural models to support seismic hazard computational models including fault stress models, dynamic rupture simulations, wave propagation models, earthquake simulators:
      1. CVM
      2. CFM
      3. Block Model
      4. Crustal Motion Model
    2. UCERF2.0 development
    3. UCERF3.0 development
    4. Release of multiple southern California CVM’s (CVM-S4 and CVM-H 11.2)
    5. Introduction of alternative Geotechnical layer models-based on Vs30
  4. Review of CVM User Communities to be considered:
    1. High frequency wave propagation simulations (>1Hz)
    2. Low frequency wave propagation simulations (< 1Hz)
    3. Dynamic rupture modeling
    4. Seismic hazard PSHA calculations
    5. Others to be considered?
  5. Discussion of Capabilities of Proposed state-wide CVM
    1. Region to be covered
    2. What features will it have (GTL, bathymetry, topography)
    3. What users will is support
    4. Resolution
    5. Expression of uncertainty
    6. Arbitrary precision
    7. Expression of maximum useful frequency or resolution
  6. Model construction, implementation, and delivery
    1. New model development
    2. Combining or integrating best of existing models
    3. Management of alternative models
    4. Blending of existing models
    5. Delivery of model to end-users
    6. Delivery of model to model-developers
  7. Evaluation of Candidate and Alternative Models
    1. Proposed use of wave propagation simulations and comparison of seismograms to observations to evaluate alternative models
    2. Description of existing SCEC CVM evaluation system (developed for CVM-H,CVM-S)
    3. Additional capabilities needed in an automated testing system which can repeat the same simulation and same evaluation tests with alternative models
    4. Selection of goodness of fit metrics
    5. Selection of goodness reference earthquakes distributed around the state and associated observational datasets
    6. Level of support by SCEC for alternative models
  8. Review of existing models
    1. CVM-S4 (Magistrale)
    2. CVM-S4 3D inversion update (Chen)
    3. CVM-H 11.2 (Shaw)
    4. CVM-H-based Central California update (Tape)
    5. USGS Central California Model (Aagaard)
    6. Lin-Thurber state-wide model (Lin)
    7. Hauksson model (Hauksson)
    8. Graves Mendicino Model (Graves)
    9. Thurber Northern California Model (Thurber)
    10. Reno Nevada Model (Magistrale)
    11. Las Vegas Nevada Model (Magistrale)
  9. External Groups with CVM Development Tools, Interests, Capabilities
    1. IRIS
    2. USGS
    3. Others?
  10. Technical Development Approach
    1. Development of CVM software:
    2. UCVM software is intended to support statewide-CVM development.
    3. Supports standardized interface that can access multiple underlying models
      1. CVM-S4
      2. CVM-H 11.2
      3. USGS Central California Model
      4. Lin-Thurber
      5. 1D background models
      6. Supports state-wide topography, bathymetry models
      7. Supports application of state-wide geotechnical layer based on Wills/Wald Vs30
      8. Supports creation and delivery of etree models
      9. Supports query by depth and query by elevation
      10. Supports creation of large meshes
  11. Tools required for Model Development
    1. Automated CVM evaluation capabilities using wave propagation simulations
    2. Mesh construction
    3. Combining alternative models (e.g. Lin-Thurber with CVM-H 11.2)
    4. Mesh slices and profiles
    5. Model volume visualization
    6. Migration between existing model formats (USGS e-tree, Gocad voxels, CVM-S objects, Lin-Thurber tables)
  12. Software development activities and priorities
    1. Discussion of current UCVM capabilities
    2. Discussion of software development priorities
Retrieved from "https://strike.scec.org/index.php?title=UCVM_Workshop_May_2011&oldid=3024"