CVM Improvement - Revision history

Maechlin at 20:56, 3 January 2012

2012-01-03T20:56:09Z

Maechlin: /* UCVM Regions KML File */

2011-12-20T22:24:08Z

UCVM Regions KML File

Maechlin at 22:21, 20 December 2011

2011-12-20T22:21:49Z

Maechlin: /* Related Entries */

2011-12-20T22:18:00Z

Related Entries

Maechlin: /* UCVM Regions KML File */

2011-12-20T22:16:23Z

UCVM Regions KML File

Maechlin at 22:08, 20 December 2011

2011-12-20T22:08:09Z

Maechlin at 22:05, 20 December 2011

2011-12-20T22:05:43Z

Maechlin at 21:55, 20 December 2011

2011-12-20T21:55:15Z

Maechlin: Created page with 'There is interest in whether CVM-S and CVM-H models are converging through full 3D tomography work of Chen and Tape. To look into this issue, we propose a plan to compare the mo…'

2011-12-20T21:51:14Z

Created page with 'There is interest in whether CVM-S and CVM-H models are converging through full 3D tomography work of Chen and Tape. To look into this issue, we propose a plan to compare the mo…'

New page

There is interest in whether CVM-S and CVM-H models are converging through full 3D tomography work of Chen and Tape.

To look into this issue, we propose a plan to compare the models in a number of ways.

We will use the CVM-S4 region down to 100km depth (see kml file below for exact coordinates) because both models provide Vp, Vs, and density (rho) for this region, at 1km spacing. If the area is approximately 200km x 300km x 100km = 6,000,000 mesh points.

We will use UCVM software to extract low resolutions (1km) meshes using CVM-S4 and CVM-SI9.

For each parameter Vp, Vs, and density, we will create difference meshes, then plot slices and possibly volumes.

For CVM-H, the current release notes for CVM-H say that version 5.5 (Sept 2008) was the last version of CVM-H without Carl Tape inversion results. It also says that CVM-H 6.0 was first with inversion results. We propose to use these two versions (if we can find a distribution of them) of CVM-H as the starting and original models. This assumes we only want to examine inversion improvements. CVM-H has also recently added a basin based on a Graves paper. This is a CVM-H improvement, but not based on tomographic results.

We also make a difference meshes between CVM-S4 and CVM-H 5.5 starting models and CVM-SI9 and CVM-H 6.0 improved models. If the overall difference between CVM-S and CVM-H is lower when we compare the difference of original models and difference of improved models, this provides evidence that the models are converging.

== UCVM Regions KML File ==
*[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/UCVM/UCVM_Coverage_Region_20Dec2011.kml UCVM Regions (kml)]

== Related Entries ==
*[[CVM-H]]
*[[CVM-H]]
*[[Community Velocity Model]]
*[[F3DT]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-To investigate whether CVM-S and CVM-H models are converging through the full 3D tomography [[F3DT]] work of Chen and Tape, we will compare a southern California region down to 100km depth (see kml file below for exact coordinates) using both models, because both models provide Vp, Vs, and density (rho) for this region. At 1km spacing, with the area approximately 200km x 300km x 100km = 6,000,000 mesh points.
+To investigate whether CVM-S and CVM-H models are converging through the full 3D tomography [[F3DT]] work of Chen and Tape, we will compare a southern California region down to 50km depth (see kml file below for exact coordinates) using both models, because both models provide Vp, Vs, and density (rho) for this region. At 1km spacing, with the area approximately 200km x 300km x 50km = 3,000,000 mesh points.
 We will extract low resolutions (1km) meshes using CVM-S4 and CVM-SI9. We will use query by depth, using the UCVM software to remove topography from CVM-H
-For each parameter Vp, Vs, and density, we will create difference meshes, then plot slices and possibly volumes. We will do this only if tomography results update all three of these parameters.
+We will create difference meshes for the Vs parameter, then plot slices and possibly volumes. We will do this only if tomography results update all three of these parameters.
 The CVM-H release notes say that version 5.5 (Sept 2008) was the last version of CVM-H without Carl Tape inversion results. It also says that CVM-H 6.0 was the first with Tape inversion results. We propose to use these two versions (if we can find a distribution of them) of CVM-H as the starting and improved models. This assumes we only want to examine inversion improvements. CVM-H has also recently added a basin based on a Graves paper. This is a CVM-H improvement, but not based on tomographic results.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == UCVM Regions KML File ==
-*[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/ucvm/UCVM_Coverage_Region.kml UCVM Regions (kml)]
+To compare the CVM-S and CVM-H, we will use the CVM-S coverage region as our comparison region because both models define material properties for most of this region. Here are coordinates for the comparison region in kml and lat,lon format.
 * CVM comparison region, based on corners of CVM-S (not considering 1D Hadley Kanamori Background model)
 ** 31.00,-116.75

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == UCVM Regions KML File ==
-*[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/UCVM/UCVM_Coverage_Region_20Dec2011.kml UCVM Regions (kml)]
+*[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/ucvm/UCVM_Coverage_Region.kml UCVM Regions (kml)]
 * CVM comparison region, based on corners of CVM-S (not considering 1D Hadley Kanamori Background model)
 ** 31.00,-116.75

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 == UCVM Regions KML File ==
 *[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/UCVM/UCVM_Coverage_Region_20Dec2011.kml UCVM Regions (kml)]
-* Corners of CVM-S (not considering 1D Hadley Kanamori Background model)
+* CVM comparison region, based on corners of CVM-S (not considering 1D Hadley Kanamori Background model)
 ** 31.00,-116.75
 ** 35.00,-121.00
 ** 37.50,-118.25
 ** 33.50,-113.75
 == Related Entries ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 To investigate whether CVM-S and CVM-H models are converging through the full 3D tomography [[F3DT]] work of Chen and Tape, we will compare a southern California region down to 100km depth (see kml file below for exact coordinates) using both models, because both models provide Vp, Vs, and density (rho) for this region. At 1km spacing, with the area approximately 200km x 300km x 100km = 6,000,000 mesh points.
-We will use UCVM software to extract low resolutions (1km) meshes using CVM-S4 and CVM-SI9.
+We will extract low resolutions (1km) meshes using CVM-S4 and CVM-SI9. We will use query by depth, using the UCVM software to remove topography from CVM-H
-For each parameter Vp, Vs, and density, we will create difference meshes, then plot slices and possibly volumes.
+For each parameter Vp, Vs, and density, we will create difference meshes, then plot slices and possibly volumes. We will do this only if tomography results update all three of these parameters.
 The CVM-H release notes say that version 5.5 (Sept 2008) was the last version of CVM-H without Carl Tape inversion results. It also says that CVM-H 6.0 was the first with Tape inversion results. We propose to use these two versions (if we can find a distribution of them) of CVM-H as the starting and improved models. This assumes we only want to examine inversion improvements. CVM-H has also recently added a basin based on a Graves paper. This is a CVM-H improvement, but not based on tomographic results.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 == Related Entries ==
 *[[CVM-H]]
-*[[CVM-H]]
+*[[CVM-S]]
 *[[Community Velocity Model]]
 *[[F3DT]]