BBP Validation 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)