Difference between revisions of "BBP Validation 2020"
From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
** Validation metrics that already exists (duration, inter-frequency correlation, Anderson GOF, etc.)? | ** Validation metrics that already exists (duration, inter-frequency correlation, Anderson GOF, etc.)? | ||
** New validation metrics? | ** New validation metrics? | ||
| − | * Group validation of RidgeCrest Earthquake Sequence | + | * Events to consider/discussion notes |
| − | + | ** Group validation of RidgeCrest Earthquake Sequence (3 main events M5.4, 6.4, 7.1) | |
| + | ** Amatrice: | ||
| + | *** another Italian event | ||
| + | ** El Mayor | ||
| + | *** multi-segment but low benefit as recordings are all far field | ||
| + | ** Kumamoto (M7, 2016) | ||
| + | *** great event to do | ||
| + | *** could use existing Japanese vmod | ||
| + | *** part of blind simulation exercise at 2021 ESG6 (http://www.esg6.jp/index.html) | ||
| + | *** issue is access to processed data (not done by PEER) | ||
| + | ** Taiwan (Meinong, M6.4 2016) | ||
| + | *** issue is access to processed data (not done by PEER) | ||
== 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) | ||
| + | ** Focus on near-field (avoid basins); rough proposed box TODO: post pic from Christine (3/18/2020) | ||
** 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. |
| − | * Start with M5.4 SRC from Graves (3/25/2020) | + | ** Some are missing; PEER notified 2/19/2020. |
| + | * Start with M5.4, then 6.4, then 7.1 | ||
| + | ** M5.4 SRC from Graves (3/25/2020) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:42, 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?
- Events to consider/discussion notes
- Group validation of RidgeCrest Earthquake Sequence (3 main events M5.4, 6.4, 7.1)
- Amatrice:
- another Italian event
- El Mayor
- multi-segment but low benefit as recordings are all far field
- Kumamoto (M7, 2016)
- great event to do
- could use existing Japanese vmod
- part of blind simulation exercise at 2021 ESG6 (http://www.esg6.jp/index.html)
- issue is access to processed data (not done by PEER)
- Taiwan (Meinong, M6.4 2016)
- issue is access to processed data (not done by PEER)
Group validation of RidgeCrest Earthquake Sequence
- New velocity model: South Sierra Nevada (ssn) TODO: post ppt from Rob (2/21/2020)
- Focus on near-field (avoid basins); rough proposed box TODO: post pic from Christine (3/18/2020)
- 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, then 6.4, then 7.1
- M5.4 SRC from Graves (3/25/2020)
