Difference between revisions of "UGMS Validation"
From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search (Created page with "CyberShake validation efforts are underway for the UGMS. We have identified ERF 36, source 64, rupture 3 as the best fit for the ShakeOut scenario (S. San Andreas;CH+CC+BB+NM...") |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
We will look at IM values at the 336 CyberShake sites from Study 15.4 for 3 rupture variations: | We will look at IM values at the 336 CyberShake sites from Study 15.4 for 3 rupture variations: | ||
| − | *southern, 199 (34.3544, -117.6388, 7.9 km) | + | *southern, 199 (34.3544, -117.6388, 7.9 km): [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/southern_rupture.csv IM Values] |
| − | *central, 223 (35.0037, -119.4943, 8.1 km) | + | *central, 223 (35.0037, -119.4943, 8.1 km): [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/central_rupture.csv IM Values] |
| − | *northern, 67 (35.709, -120.258, 6.7 km) | + | *northern, 67 (35.709, -120.258, 6.7 km): [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/northern_rupture.csv IM Values] |
To aid in plotting, we pulled out the uppermost points on this rupture into a file [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/64_3_surface.txt here]. | To aid in plotting, we pulled out the uppermost points on this rupture into a file [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/cybershake/UGMS_Validation/64_3_surface.txt here]. | ||
Latest revision as of 22:33, 14 March 2016
CyberShake validation efforts are underway for the UGMS.
We have identified ERF 36, source 64, rupture 3 as the best fit for the ShakeOut scenario (S. San Andreas;CH+CC+BB+NM+SM, M7.85).
We will look at IM values at the 336 CyberShake sites from Study 15.4 for 3 rupture variations:
- southern, 199 (34.3544, -117.6388, 7.9 km): IM Values
- central, 223 (35.0037, -119.4943, 8.1 km): IM Values
- northern, 67 (35.709, -120.258, 6.7 km): IM Values
To aid in plotting, we pulled out the uppermost points on this rupture into a file here.
