Difference between revisions of "HighF 2018"
From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search| (95 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page documents the High-F activities and decisions for the 2018 verification and validation runs for three groups: Olsen et al. (AWP), Graves (RWG) and Taborda et al. (Hercules). | This page documents the High-F activities and decisions for the 2018 verification and validation runs for three groups: Olsen et al. (AWP), Graves (RWG) and Taborda et al. (Hercules). | ||
| + | |||
| + | == USGS Earthquake Information == | ||
| + | *[[La Habra Earthquake]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Observational Data == | ||
| + | *[[La_Habra_Observational_Data]] | ||
| + | *[[Selection_of_La_Habra_Ground_Motion_Observations]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Region Definitions == | ||
| + | *[[La_Habra_Simulation_Region]] | ||
| + | *[[La Habra Simulations on Titan]] | ||
== Mesh generation rules and parameter constraints == | == Mesh generation rules and parameter constraints == | ||
| Line 23: | Line 34: | ||
* Kim and Rob have been low-pass filtering the slip function at 5 Hz | * Kim and Rob have been low-pass filtering the slip function at 5 Hz | ||
* Ricardo and Naeem don’t filter the source | * Ricardo and Naeem don’t filter the source | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Source Models == | == Source Models == | ||
| Line 38: | Line 47: | ||
*PS: model from En-Jui (moment tensor). Can we replicate En-Jui's results? Would need to use CVMS4.26 (cms5) - not desirable. We could perform a check with CVS4.26.M01 at 5 sec. Need to use the same record En-Jui used. Proposed to use records from Figure 6 in: | *PS: model from En-Jui (moment tensor). Can we replicate En-Jui's results? Would need to use CVMS4.26 (cms5) - not desirable. We could perform a check with CVS4.26.M01 at 5 sec. Need to use the same record En-Jui used. Proposed to use records from Figure 6 in: | ||
** Lee E.-J., P. Chen, and T.H. Jordan (2014). Testing Waveform Predictions of 3D Velocity Models against Two Recent Los Angeles Earthquakes. Seismol. Res. Lett., 85 (6): 1275–1284 ([http://hypocenter.usc.edu/var/www/html/research/High-F_2018/Lee%2C%20Chen%2C%20Jordan%20-%202014%20-%20Testing%20Waveform%20Predictions%20of%203D%20Velocity%20Models%20against%20Two%20Recent%20Los%20Angeles%20Earthquakes.pdf Paper here]) | ** Lee E.-J., P. Chen, and T.H. Jordan (2014). Testing Waveform Predictions of 3D Velocity Models against Two Recent Los Angeles Earthquakes. Seismol. Res. Lett., 85 (6): 1275–1284 ([http://hypocenter.usc.edu/var/www/html/research/High-F_2018/Lee%2C%20Chen%2C%20Jordan%20-%202014%20-%20Testing%20Waveform%20Predictions%20of%203D%20Velocity%20Models%20against%20Two%20Recent%20Los%20Angeles%20Earthquakes.pdf Paper here]) | ||
| − | *FF: | + | *FF: [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/High-F_2018/LaHabra_notes-20170412-presented-2017-04-24.pdf Summary of agreed-upon FF model (gp.5.3.02)] |
* FF refined with velocity model [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/High-F_2018/rwg_slides-20180221.pptx Slides from Graves presented on Feb. 21 2018] | * FF refined with velocity model [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/High-F_2018/rwg_slides-20180221.pptx Slides from Graves presented on Feb. 21 2018] | ||
== Site Selection == | == Site Selection == | ||
| + | == Simulation results == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === Results from December 4 2020 === | ||
| + | Description: results for the large region (180km vs 135km) from November/December 2020: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/bbp/highf/2020-12-04/2020-12-04-combined/ AWP-Hercules-RWG-Edge Comparison] | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Results shared on March 12 2018 === | ||
| + | Description: results for the small region from November 10 2017: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Description: small region simulations for Hercules (updated to use simulations including Q), AWP (updated since November 2017) and RWG (medium size model to avoid boundary reflexions): | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/bbp/highf/awp-hercules-rwg-2018-03-12 AWP-Hercules-RWG Comparison] | ||
| + | * [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/bbp/highf/bbp_comparison/awp-hercules-rwg-2018-03-12 AWP-Hercules-RWG Timeseries Comparison] | ||
| − | |||
=== Results shared on March 5 2018 === | === Results shared on March 5 2018 === | ||
Description: results for the small region from November 10 2017: | Description: results for the small region from November 10 2017: | ||
| Line 53: | Line 76: | ||
* [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/bbp/highf/obs-awp-hercules-rwg-2018-03-05 AWP-Hercules-RWG Comparison With Observations] | * [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/bbp/highf/obs-awp-hercules-rwg-2018-03-05 AWP-Hercules-RWG Comparison With Observations] | ||
| − | === | + | == 2019-12-02 Call, summary of plans for 2020== |
| − | Description: results for the small | + | |
| + | === Goals for 2020 === | ||
| + | ** Verification paper (2020 Q1+?) | ||
| + | ** Validation paper(s) (2020 Q2+?) | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Action items from call === | ||
| + | * Rob to test other finite fault models using near-fault data and perform initial screening of candidate sources | ||
| + | * Christine to coordinate with Phil and Fabio for Jan. High-F sprint | ||
| + | ** to allow use of BBP GOF post-processors with high-f results and data | ||
| + | ** to revive GOF map plotting tools (last run in 2016) | ||
| + | ** Christine to verify that PSA results are ok (see anomaly on 20181125 results for observations of CE_13066). | ||
| + | ** need to confirm start time as documented in post-processing code. Is it more or less constant with offset at all stations? | ||
| + | * Christine to re-start verification paper development | ||
| + | * Group need to document their submissions for point source or rerun them (see section below; finite fault is documented). | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Latest 2018 results documentation === | ||
| + | Description: results for the small and large regions (model dependent) from November 10 2017, computed 20181125 using the latest ts_processor codes: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/bbp/highf/obs-awp-hercules-rwg-2018-11-25-vel/ AWP-Hercules-RWG-OBS Comparison] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Summary documentation of extended source simulations submitted at [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/highf_data/ high-f]: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hercules 20171106 notes: | ||
| + | * Simulation of Mw 5.14 Lahabra Earthquake.(2014/03/29 04:09:42.97) with damping and using the extended source model provided by Robert Graves (downsampled version of the SRF for La Habra and based on 3D velocity model.The subfault spacing is 100 m). This simulation is part of High-F project. The simulation is done using the CVM-etree extracted from CVM-S4.26.M01 (28*28*14 km) at the “Small Domain." See readme.txt in their folder for more info. | ||
| + | |||
| + | RWG 20180425 notes: | ||
| + | * 20180425 - RWG simulation results for full-size model region (135 km x 180 km x 60 km). Velocity mesh was created on BlueWaters using UCVM interface that Scott C. created. Model is CVM-S4.26.M01 (at least I believe so, I selected 'cvmsi' as input to single_exe.py). Vp/Vs capped at 3.0, Vsmin=500 ms, Qs=100*Vs(m/s), Qp=2*Qs. Time step is dt=0.001 sec. Waveforms are ground velocity and have been low-pass filtered using zero-phase 4th order butterworth with corner at 5 Hz. | ||
| − | + | AWP 20181203 notes: | |
| + | * The latest anelastic simulation using cap of vp/vs=3, minimum Vs at 500 m/s with simulation length to 120 seconds in the large domain (180 km * 135 km * 60 km, grid spacing = 20 m). Number of stations: 351. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Related Pages == | == Related Pages == | ||
| + | *[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/HighF_La_Habra_Verification High-F 2020 continuation of verification] | ||
| + | |||
*[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/High-F_Project High-F Main page] | *[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/High-F_Project High-F Main page] | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/HighF_v14.12 High-F 14.12 description of parameters for verification and validation] | ||
*[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/HighF_v14.12_Data_Comparison Past verification (HighF_v14.12_Data)] | *[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/HighF_v14.12_Data_Comparison Past verification (HighF_v14.12_Data)] | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/La_Habra_Simulation_Region La Habra Simulation region (small domain)] | ||
*[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/La_Habra_Simulations_on_Titan La Habra simulations on Titan] | *[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/La_Habra_Simulations_on_Titan La Habra simulations on Titan] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
*[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/La_Habra_Observational_Data La Habra Observational data] | *[https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/La_Habra_Observational_Data La Habra Observational data] | ||
Latest revision as of 00:21, 7 April 2021
This page documents the High-F activities and decisions for the 2018 verification and validation runs for three groups: Olsen et al. (AWP), Graves (RWG) and Taborda et al. (Hercules).
Contents
USGS Earthquake Information
Observational Data
Region Definitions
Mesh generation rules and parameter constraints
Velocities
- 1. Set Min Vs=500 m/s
- 2. If Vs was lower than 500 m/s and adjusted, then adjust Vp with original Vp/Vs ratio (so that we don’t have the automatic Vs/Vp of 3). We may want to set a minimum value of Vp (Rob to check)
- 3. Then set Max Vp/Vs= 3, if lower Vp to maintain the max of 3 ratio
Lame parameters (mu and lambda)
Use mu and Lambda parameters to fix Vp/Vs issues in the CVM where necessary, as part of the mesh generation. Need to make sure that patches are physical and not only to make the codes run.
- Rob to check if raw model produces lambda of <=zero.
- Note: lambda of zero corresponds to Vp/Vs= sqrt(2)=1.45
- Note: typical Vp speeds are 330 m/s in air, 1450 m/s in water and about 5000 m/s in granite
Anelastic attenuation (Q)
Frequency-independent Q definition
- Qs=100*Vs(km/s)
- Qp=2*Qs
Upper frequency
- 5Hz: based on 500 m/s and 20 m spacing
- Kim and Rob have been low-pass filtering the slip function at 5 Hz
- Ricardo and Naeem don’t filter the source
Source Models
We discussed various sources, both point source (PS) and finite-fault (FF) in the past for our verifications and validation.
- Various models were run in 2016:
- Also ran various smoothed variations of the GP15 FF (need to find a reference for that)
- Rob to follow-up with Wei (last communication was in April 2017).
Proposed models for verification and validation:
- PS: model from En-Jui (moment tensor). Can we replicate En-Jui's results? Would need to use CVMS4.26 (cms5) - not desirable. We could perform a check with CVS4.26.M01 at 5 sec. Need to use the same record En-Jui used. Proposed to use records from Figure 6 in:
- Lee E.-J., P. Chen, and T.H. Jordan (2014). Testing Waveform Predictions of 3D Velocity Models against Two Recent Los Angeles Earthquakes. Seismol. Res. Lett., 85 (6): 1275–1284 (Paper here)
- FF: Summary of agreed-upon FF model (gp.5.3.02)
- FF refined with velocity model Slides from Graves presented on Feb. 21 2018
Site Selection
Simulation results
Results from December 4 2020
Description: results for the large region (180km vs 135km) from November/December 2020:
Description: results for the small region from November 10 2017:
Description: small region simulations for Hercules (updated to use simulations including Q), AWP (updated since November 2017) and RWG (medium size model to avoid boundary reflexions):
Description: results for the small region from November 10 2017:
Description: small region simulations for Hercules, AWP (updated since November 2017) and RWG (medium size model to avoid boundary reflexions):
2019-12-02 Call, summary of plans for 2020
Goals for 2020
- Verification paper (2020 Q1+?)
- Validation paper(s) (2020 Q2+?)
Action items from call
- Rob to test other finite fault models using near-fault data and perform initial screening of candidate sources
- Christine to coordinate with Phil and Fabio for Jan. High-F sprint
- to allow use of BBP GOF post-processors with high-f results and data
- to revive GOF map plotting tools (last run in 2016)
- Christine to verify that PSA results are ok (see anomaly on 20181125 results for observations of CE_13066).
- need to confirm start time as documented in post-processing code. Is it more or less constant with offset at all stations?
- Christine to re-start verification paper development
- Group need to document their submissions for point source or rerun them (see section below; finite fault is documented).
Latest 2018 results documentation
Description: results for the small and large regions (model dependent) from November 10 2017, computed 20181125 using the latest ts_processor codes:
Summary documentation of extended source simulations submitted at high-f:
Hercules 20171106 notes:
- Simulation of Mw 5.14 Lahabra Earthquake.(2014/03/29 04:09:42.97) with damping and using the extended source model provided by Robert Graves (downsampled version of the SRF for La Habra and based on 3D velocity model.The subfault spacing is 100 m). This simulation is part of High-F project. The simulation is done using the CVM-etree extracted from CVM-S4.26.M01 (28*28*14 km) at the “Small Domain." See readme.txt in their folder for more info.
RWG 20180425 notes:
- 20180425 - RWG simulation results for full-size model region (135 km x 180 km x 60 km). Velocity mesh was created on BlueWaters using UCVM interface that Scott C. created. Model is CVM-S4.26.M01 (at least I believe so, I selected 'cvmsi' as input to single_exe.py). Vp/Vs capped at 3.0, Vsmin=500 ms, Qs=100*Vs(m/s), Qp=2*Qs. Time step is dt=0.001 sec. Waveforms are ground velocity and have been low-pass filtered using zero-phase 4th order butterworth with corner at 5 Hz.
AWP 20181203 notes:
- The latest anelastic simulation using cap of vp/vs=3, minimum Vs at 500 m/s with simulation length to 120 seconds in the large domain (180 km * 135 km * 60 km, grid spacing = 20 m). Number of stations: 351.
