Difference between revisions of "BBP Validation 2020"
From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
== Group validation of RidgeCrest Earthquake Sequence == | == Group validation of RidgeCrest Earthquake Sequence == | ||
* New velocity model: South Sierra Nevada (ssn) TODO: post ppt from Rob (2/21/2020) | * New velocity model: South Sierra Nevada (ssn) TODO: post ppt from Rob (2/21/2020) | ||
| − | * Need new GFs for UCSB and new crustal amps for EXSIM (completed 3/25/2020) | + | ** Need new GFs for UCSB and new crustal amps for EXSIM (completed 3/25/2020) |
* Use PEER dataset for ground motions. Some are missing; PEER notified 2/19/2020. | * Use PEER dataset for ground motions. Some are missing; PEER notified 2/19/2020. | ||
* Start with M5.4 SRC from Graves (3/25/2020) | * Start with M5.4 SRC from Graves (3/25/2020) | ||
Revision as of 22:29, 25 March 2020
Intro
We discussed the following focus areas to consider for 2020
- Evaluate source variability and parameters space sensitivity
- Will require more than 50 realizations maybe 200?
- Focus in-close where path effects are not controlling the results (within 1 fault length)
- M-A
- Area changes (DDW only?)
- Rupture velocity
- Dip
- Moment-rate (using duration)
- Evaluate simulations for other metrics
- Validation metrics that already exists (duration, inter-frequency correlation, Anderson GOF, etc.)?
- New validation metrics?
- Group validation of RidgeCrest Earthquake Sequence
Group validation of RidgeCrest Earthquake Sequence
- New velocity model: South Sierra Nevada (ssn) TODO: post ppt from Rob (2/21/2020)
- Need new GFs for UCSB and new crustal amps for EXSIM (completed 3/25/2020)
- Use PEER dataset for ground motions. Some are missing; PEER notified 2/19/2020.
- Start with M5.4 SRC from Graves (3/25/2020)
