Difference between revisions of "CyberShake Study 22.12"
From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
=== Science to-dos === | === Science to-dos === | ||
| − | * | + | *Perform validation for Northridge, Chino Hills, Whittier, Landers, Hector Mine, and North Palm Springs |
*For each validation event, calculate BBP results, CS results, and CS results with BBP Vs30 values | *For each validation event, calculate BBP results, CS results, and CS results with BBP Vs30 values | ||
| + | *Check for spectral discontinuities around 1 Hz | ||
*Decide if we should stick with rvfrac=0.8 or allow it to vary | *Decide if we should stick with rvfrac=0.8 or allow it to vary | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
*Determine appropriate SGT, low-frequency, and high-frequency seismogram durations | *Determine appropriate SGT, low-frequency, and high-frequency seismogram durations | ||
*Update high-frequency Vs30 to use released Thompson values | *Update high-frequency Vs30 to use released Thompson values | ||
| Line 43: | Line 46: | ||
*Integrate refactoring of BBP codes into latest BBP release | *Integrate refactoring of BBP codes into latest BBP release | ||
*Switch to using github repo version of CyberShake on Summit | *Switch to using github repo version of CyberShake on Summit | ||
| − | *Update to latest UCVM ( | + | *Update to latest UCVM (v22.7) |
*Switch to optimized version of rupture generator | *Switch to optimized version of rupture generator | ||
*Test DirectSynth code with fixed memory leak from Frontera | *Test DirectSynth code with fixed memory leak from Frontera | ||
Revision as of 20:52, 11 July 2022
CyberShake Study 22.10 is a proposed study in Southern California which will include deterministic low-frequency (0-1 Hz) and stochastic high-frequency (1-50 Hz) simulations. We will use the Graves & Pitarka (2019) rupture generator and the high frequency modules from the SCEC Broadband Platform v22.4.
Contents
- 1 Status
- 2 Data Products
- 3 Science Goals
- 4 Technical Goals
- 5 Sites
- 6 Velocity Model
- 7 Verification
- 8 Updates and Enhancements
- 9 Output Data Products
- 10 Computational and Data Estimates
- 11 Lessons Learned
- 12 Stress Test
- 13 Performance Metrics
- 14 Production Checklist
- 15 Presentations, Posters, and Papers
Status
This study is in the planning phase. We estimate calculations will begin in October 2022.
Data Products
Science Goals
Technical Goals
Sites
Velocity Model
Verification
Updates and Enhancements
Output Data Products
Computational and Data Estimates
Lessons Learned
Stress Test
Performance Metrics
Production Checklist
Science to-dos
- Perform validation for Northridge, Chino Hills, Whittier, Landers, Hector Mine, and North Palm Springs
- For each validation event, calculate BBP results, CS results, and CS results with BBP Vs30 values
- Check for spectral discontinuities around 1 Hz
- Decide if we should stick with rvfrac=0.8 or allow it to vary
- Determine appropriate SGT, low-frequency, and high-frequency seismogram durations
- Update high-frequency Vs30 to use released Thompson values
Technical to-dos
- Integrate refactoring of BBP codes into latest BBP release
- Switch to using github repo version of CyberShake on Summit
- Update to latest UCVM (v22.7)
- Switch to optimized version of rupture generator
- Test DirectSynth code with fixed memory leak from Frontera
- Switch to using Pegasus-supported interface to Globus transfers
