CyberShake Study 22.12

CyberShake Study 22.12 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 (2022) rupture generator and the high frequency modules from the SCEC Broadband Platform v22.4.

Status

This study is in the planning phase. We estimate calculations will begin in December 2022.

Data Products

Data products will be posted here when the study is completed.

Science Goals

The science goals for this study are:

• Calculate a regional CyberShake model for southern California using an updated rupture generator.
• Calculate an updated broadband CyberShake model.
• Sample variability in rupture velocity as part of the rupture generator.
• Increase hypocentral density, from 4.5 km to 4 km.

Technical Goals

The technical goals for this study are:

• Use an optimized OpenMP version of the post-processing code.
• Bundle the SGT and post-processing jobs to run on large Condor glide-ins, taking advantage of queue policies favoring large jobs.
• Perform the largest CyberShake study to date.

Sites

We will use the standard 335 southern California sites (same as Study 21.12). The order of execution will be:

• Sites of interest
• 20 km grid
• 10 km grid
• Selected 5 km grid sites

• CSV site list
• KML site list with names
• KML site list without names

Velocity Model

Summary: We are using a velocity model which is a combination of CVM-S4.26.M01 and the Ely-Jordan GTL:

• At each mesh point in the top 700m, we calculate the Vs value from CVM-S4.26.M01, and from the Ely-Jordan GTL using a taper down to 700m.
• We select the approach which produces the smallest Vs value, and we use the Vp, Vs, and rho from that approach.
• We also preserve the Vp/Vs ratio, so if the Vs minimum of 500 m/s is applied, Vp will be scaled so the Vp/Vs ratio is the same.

We are planning to use CVM-S4.26 with a GTL applied, and the CVM-S4 1D background model outside of the region boundaries.

We are investigating applying the Ely-Jordan GTL down to 700 m instead of the default of 350m. We extracted profiles for a series of southern California CyberShake sites, with no GTL, a GTL applied down to 350m, and a GTL applied down to 700m.

Sites (the CVM-S4.26 basins are outlined in red):

These are for sites outside of the CVM-S4.26 basins:

Site	No GTL	700m GTL	Smaller value, extracted from mesh
LAPD
s764
s568
s035
PERR
MRVY
s211

These are for sites inside of the CVM-S4.26 basins:

Site	No GTL	700m GTL	Smaller value
s117
USC
WNGC
PEDL
SBSM
SVD

Proposed Algorithm

Our proposed algorithm for generating the velocity model is as follows:

1. Set the surface mesh point to a depth of 25m.
2. Query the CVM-S4.26.M01 model ('cvmsi' string in UCVM) for each grid point.
3. Calculate the Ely taper at that point using 700m as the transition depth.
4. Compare the values before and after the taper modification; at each grid point down to the transition depth, use the value from the method with the lower Vs value.
5. Check values for Vp/Vs ratio, minimum Vs, Inf/NaNs, etc.

Value constraints

We impose the following constraints on velocity mesh values:

1. Vp >= 1700 m/s. If lower, Vp is set to 1700.
2. Vs >= 500 m/s. If lower, Vs is set to 500.
3. rho >= 1700 km/m3. If lower, rho is set to 1700.
4. Vp/Vs >= 1.45. If not, Vs is set to Vp/1.45.

We will add the following additional constraints:

1. If Vs<500 m/s, calculate the Vp/Vs ratio, set Vs=500, then set Vp=Vs*(Vp/Vs ratio).
2. Apply Vp clamp after Vs check.

Cross-sections

Below are cross-sections of the TEST site velocity model at depths down to 600m for CVM-S4.26.M01, the taper to 700m, the lesser of the two values, and the % difference.

Note that the top two slices use a different color scale.

Depth	CVM-S4.26.M01	Ely taper to 700m	Selecting smaller value	% difference, smaller value vs S4.26.M01
0m (queried at 25m depth)
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
600m

Implementation details

To support the Ely taper approach where the smaller value is selected, the following algorithmic changes were made to the CyberShake mesh generation code. Since the UCVM C API doesn't support removing models, we couldn't just add the 'elygtl' model - it would then be included in every query, and we need to run queries with and without it to make the comparison. We also must include the Ely interpolator, since all that querying the elygtl model does is populates the gtl part of the properties with the Vs30 value, and it's the interpolator which takes this and the crustal model info and generates the taper.

• The decomposition is done by either X-parallel or Y-parallel stripes, which have a constant depth. Check the depth to see if it is shallower than the transition depth.
• If so, initialize the elygtl model using ucvm_elygtl_model_init(), if uninitialized. Set the id to UCVM_MAX_MODELS-1. There's no way to get model id info from UCVM, so we use UCVM_MAX_MODELS-1 as it is 29, we are very unlikely to load 29 models, and therefore unlikely to have an id conflict.
• Change the depth value of the points to query to the transition depth. This is because we need to know the crustal model Vs value at the transition depth, so that the Ely interpolator can match it.
• Query the crustal model again, with the modified depths.
• Modify the 'domain' parameter in the properties data structure to UCVM_DOMAIN_INTERP, to indicate that we will be using an interpolator.
• Change the depth value of the points to query back to the correct depth, so that the interpolator can work correctly on them.
• Query the elygtl using ucvm_elygtl_model_query() and the correct depth.
• Call the interpolator for each point independently, using the correct depth.
• For each point, choose to use either the original crustal data or the Ely taper data, depending on which has the lower Vs.

In the future we plan for this approach to be implemented in UCVM, and we can simplify the CyberShake query code.

Impact on hazard

Below are hazard curves calculated with the old approach, and with the implementation described above, for WNGC.

black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs

black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs

black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs

black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs

These are scatterplots for the above WNGC curves.

black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs

black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs

black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs

black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs

Rupture Generator

Summary: We are using the Graves & Pitarka generator v5.5.2, the same version as used in the BBP v22.4, for Study 22.12.

Initial Findings

In determining what rupture generator to use for this study, we performed tests with WNGC, USC, PAS, and STNI, and compared hazard curves generated with v5.4.2 to those from Study 15.4:

Site	10 sec	5 sec	3 sec	2 sec
WNGC
USC
PAS
STNI

Digging in further, it appears the elevated hazard curves for WNGC at 2 and 3 seconds are predominately due to large-magnitude southern San Andreas events producing larger ground motions.

Scatter plot comparing the mean 3sec RotD50 for each rupture, between v3.3.1 and v5.4.2

Scatter plot comparing the mean 3sec RotD50 for each rupture, between v3.3.1 and v5.4.2, SAF events>M8 excluded

Scatter plot comparing the mean 3sec RotD50 for each rupture, between v3.3.1 and v5.4.2, SAF events>M7.5 excluded

USC, PAS, and STNI also all see larger ground motions at 2-3 seconds from these same events, but the effect isn't as strong, so it only shows up in the tails of the hazard curves.

We honed in on source 68, rupture 7, a M8.45 on the southern San Andreas which produced the largest WNGC ground motions at 3 seconds, up to 5.1g. We calculated spectral plots for v3.3.1 and v5.4.2 for all 4 sites:

Site	v3.3.1	v5.4.2
WNGC
USC
PAS
STNI

v5.5.2

We decided to try v5.5.2 of the rupture generator, which typically has less spectral content at short periods:

Site	v3.3.1	v5.4.2	v5.5.2
WNGC

Hazard Curves

Comparison hazard curves for the three rupture generators, using no taper

Site	10 sec	5 sec	3 sec	2 sec
WNGC
USC

Comparison curves for the three rupture generators, using the smaller value in the velocity model.

Site	10 sec	5 sec	3 sec	2 sec
STNI
PAS

Scatter Plots

Scatter plots, comparing results with v5.5.2 to results from Study 15.12 by plotting the mean ground motion for each rupture. The colors are magnitude bins (blue: <M6.5; green: M6.5-7; yellow: M7-7.5; orange: M7.5-8; red: M8+).

Site	10 sec	5 sec	3 sec	2 sec
WNGC
PAS
USC
STNI

We also modified the risetime_coef to 2.3, from the previous default of 1.6.

High-frequency codes

For this study, we will use the Graves & Pitarka high frequency module (hb_high) from the Broadband Platform v22.4, hb_high_v6.0.5. We will use the following parameters. Parameters in bold have been changed for this study.

Parameter	Value
stress_average	50
rayset	2,1,2
siteamp	1
nbu	4 (not used)
ifft	0 (not used)
flol	0.02 (not used)
fhil	19.9 (not used)
irand	Seed used for generating SRF
tlen	Seismogram length, in sec
dt	0.01
fmax	10 (not used)
kappa	0.04
qfexp	0.6
mean_rvfac	0.775
range_rvfac	0.1
rvfac	Calculated using BBP hfsims_cfg.py code
shal_rvfac	0.6
deep_rvfac	0.6
czero	2
c_alpha	-99
sm	-1
vr	-1
vsmoho	999.9
nlskip	-99
vpsig	0
vshsig	0
rhosig	0
qssig	0
icflag	1
velname	-1
fa_sig1	0
fa_sig2	0
rvsig1	0.1
ipdur_model	11
ispar_adjust	1
targ_mag	-1
fault_area	-1
default_c0	57
default_c1	34

Spectral Content around 1 Hz

We investigated the spectral content of the Broadband CyberShake results in the 0.5-3 second range, to look for any discontinuities.

The plot below is from WNGC, Study 15.12 (run ID 4293).

Spectral plot for WNGC from Study 15.12, target of 0.3676g @ 3 sec. Mean is in red.

Below is a plot of the hypocenters from the 706 rupture variations which meet the target.

These events have a different distribution than the rupture variations as a whole.

Fault	Percent of target RVs	Percent of all RVs
San Andreas	60	44
Elsinore	21	9
San Jacinto	13	8
Other	6	39

Additionally, 88% of the selected events have a magnitude greater than the average for their source. 4% are average, and 8% are lower.

Below is a spectral plot but which includes all rupture variations and the overall mean (in orange).

Spectral plot for WNGC from Study 15.12, all variations.

Additional Sites

We created spectral plots for 7 additional sites (STNI, SBSM, PAS, LGU, LBP, ALP, PLS), located here:

STNI	SBSM	PAS	LGU	LBP	ALP	PLS

v5.5.2

We created spectral plots using results produced with rupture generator v5.5.2. These results have a much less noticeable slope around 1 sec.

WNGC	PAS	USC	STNI

Seismogram Length

Originally we proposed a seismogram length of 500 sec. We examined seismograms for our most distance event-station pairs for this study and concluded that most stop having any meaningful signal by around 325 sec. Thus, we are reducing the seismogram length to 400 sec to ensure some margin of error.

Validation

The extensive validation efforts performed in preparation for this study are documented in Broadband_CyberShake_Validation.

Updates and Enhancements

• New velocity model created, including Ely taper to 700m and tweaked rules for applying minimum values.
• Updated to rupture generator v5.5.2.
• CyberShake broadband codes now linked directly against BBP codes
• Added -ffast-math compiler option to hb_high code for modest speedup.
• Migrated to using OpenMP version of DirectSynth code.
• Optimized rupture generator v5.5.2.
• Verification was performed against historic events, including Northridge and Landers.

Lessons Learned from Previous Studies

• Create new velocity model ID for composite model, capturing metadata.
We created a new velocity model ID to capture the model used for Study 22.12.
• Clear disk space before study begins to avoid disk contention.
On moment, we migrated old studies to focal and optimized. At CARC, we migrated old studies to OLCF HPSS.
• In addition to disk space, check local inode usage.
CARC and shock checked; plenty of inodes are available.

Output Data Products

File-based data products

We plan to produce the following data products, which will be stored at CARC:

Deterministic

• Seismograms: 2-component seismograms, 8000 timesteps (400 sec) each.
• PSA: X and Y spectral acceleration at 44 periods (10, 9.5, 9, 8.5, 8, 7.5, 7, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 5, 4.8, 4.6, 4.4, 4.2, 4, 3.8, 3.6, 3.4, 3.2, 3, 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2, 1.66667, 1.42857, 1.25, 1.11111, 1, .66667, .5, .4, .33333, .285714, .25, .22222, .2, .16667, .142857, .125, .11111, .1 sec)
• RotD: PGV, and RotD50, the RotD50 azimuth, and RotD100 at 25 periods (20, 15, 12, 10, 8.5, 7.5, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 5, 4.4, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2, 1.7, 1.5, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 1)
• Durations: for X and Y components, energy integral, Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity (CAV), and for both velocity and acceleration, 5-75%, 5-95%, and 20-80%.

Broadband

• Seismograms: 2-component seismograms, 40000 timesteps (400 sec) each.
• PSA: X and Y spectral acceleration at 44 periods (10, 9.5, 9, 8.5, 8, 7.5, 7, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 5, 4.8, 4.6, 4.4, 4.2, 4, 3.8, 3.6, 3.4, 3.2, 3, 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2, 1.66667, 1.42857, 1.25, 1.11111, 1, .66667, .5, .4, .33333, .285714, .25, .22222, .2, .16667, .142857, .125, .11111, .1 sec)
• RotD: PGA, PGV, and RotD50, the RotD50 azimuth, and RotD100 at 66 periods (20, 15, 12, 10, 8.5, 7.5, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 5, 4.4, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2, 1.7, 1.5, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 1, 0.85, 0.75, 0.65, 0.6, 0.55, 0.5, 0.45, 0.4, 0.35, 0.3, 0.28, 0.26, 0.24, 0.22, 0.2, 0.17, 0.15, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11, 0.1, 0.085, 0.075, 0.065, 0.06, 0.055, 0.05, 0.045, 0.04, 0.035, 0.032, 0.029, 0.025, 0.022, 0.02, 0.017, 0.015, 0.013, 0.012, 0.011, 0.01)
• Durations: for X and Y components, energy integral, Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity (CAV), and for both velocity and acceleration, 5-75%, 5-95%, and 20-80%.

Database data products

We plan to store the following data products in the database on moment:

Deterministic

• RotD50 and RotD100 for 6 periods (10, 7.5, 5, 4, 3, 2)
• Duration: acceleration 5-75% and 5-95%, for both X and Y

Broadband

• RotD50 and RotD100 for PGA, PGV, and 19 periods (10, 7.5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.75, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.075, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01)
• Duration: acceleration 5-75% and 5-95%, for both X and Y

Computational and Data Estimates

Computational Estimates

We based these estimates on scaling from the average of sites USC, STNI, PAS, and WNGC, which have within 1% of the average number of variations per site.

SGT calculation

	UCVM runtime	UCVM nodes	SGT runtime (both components)	SGT nodes	Other SGT workflow jobs	Summit Total
4 site average	436 sec	50	3776 sec	67	8700 node-sec	78.8 node-hrs

78.8 node-hrs x 335 sites + 10% overrun margin gives us an estimate of 29.0k node-hours for SGT calculation.

PP calculation, with the OpenMP optimization

	DirectSynth runtime	DirectSynth nodes	Summit Total
4 site average	31000	92	792

792 node-hours x 335 sites + 10% overrun margin gives an estimate of 292k node-hours for post-processing.

Broadband calculation

	PMC runtime	PMC nodes	Summit Total
4 site average	31500	92	805

805 node-hrs x 335 sites + 10% overrun margin gives an estimate of 297k node-hours for broadband calculations.

Data Estimates

Summit

On average, each site contains 626,000 rupture variations.

These estimates assume a 400 sec seismogram.

Data estimates

	Velocity mesh	SGTs size	Temp data	Output data
4 site average (GB)	177	1533	1533	225
Total for 335 sites (TB)	57.8	501.4	501.4	73.6

CARC

We estimate 225.6 GB/site x 335 sites = 73.8 TB in output data, which will be transferred back to CARC. After transferring Study 13.4 and 14.2, we have 66 TB free at CARC, so additional data will need to be moved.

shock-carc

The study should use approximately 737 GB in workflow log space on /home/shock. This drive has approximately 1.5 TB free.

moment database

The PeakAmplitudes table uses approximately 99 bytes per entry.

99 bytes/entry * 34 entries/event (11 det + 25 stoch) * 622,636 events/site * 335 sites = 654 GB. The drive on moment with the mysql database has 771 GB free, so we will plan to migrate Study 18.8 off of moment to free up additional room.

Production Checklist

Science to-dos

• Run WNGC and USC with updated velocity model.
• Redo validation for Northridge and Landers with updated velocity model, risetime_coef=2.3, and hb_high v6.1.1.
• For each validation event, calculate BBP results, CS results
• 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
• Modify RupGen-v5.5.2 into CyberShake API
• Test RupGen-v5.5.2
• Update to using v6.1.1 of hb_high.
• Add metadata to DB for merged taper velocity model.

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
• Test bundled glide-in jobs for SGT and DirectSynth jobs
• Fix seg fault in PMC running broadband processing
• Update curve generation to generate curves with more points
• Test OpenMP version of DirectSynth
• Migrate Study 18.8 from moment to focal.
• Delete Study 18.8 off of moment.
• Optimize PeakAmplitudes table on moment.
• Move Study 13.4 output files from CARC to OLCF HPSS.
• Move Study 14.2 output files from CARC to OLCF HPSS.
• Switch to using OMP version of DS code by default.
• Review wiki content.
• Switch to using Python 3.9 on shock.
• Confirm PGA and PGV are being calculated and inserted into the DB.
• Tag code.