|
|
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | | | |
| | *[[UCVM Workshop May 2011]] | | *[[UCVM Workshop May 2011]] |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Workshop May 2011 ==
| |
| − | California State-wide Community Velocity Model (CVM) Development: a State-wide 3D Velocity Model for California
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Workshop Date: Tuesday 10 May 2011
| |
| − | Workshop Time: 9:30am – 11:00am (90 minutes)
| |
| − | Agenda Version: 8 May 2011
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1. We plan to hold two CVM development workshops via teleconference calls prior to the next SCEC Annual Meeting (which will be held Sept 11-14, 2011).
| |
| − | 1.1. First CVM workshop to discuss and establish CVM development goals (10 May 2011)
| |
| − | 1.2. Second CVM workshop to discuss CVM development plans (week of June 13, 2011)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 2. Several trends are pushing SCEC towards development of state-wide models:
| |
| − | 2.1. State-wide Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) development
| |
| − | 2.2. CISN and ANSS
| |
| − | 2.3. Operational Earthquake Forecasting
| |
| − | 2.4. Simulation for large California regions
| |
| − | 2.5. SCEC4 goals
| |
| − | 2.6. Statewide wave propagation-based PSHA calculations (CyberShake)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 3. SCEC context supporting development of state-wide CVM
| |
| − | 3.1. SCEC’s long standing scientific goal of compatible, integrated, computational structural models to support seismic hazard computational models including fault stress models, dynamic rupture simulations, wave propagation models, earthquake simulators:
| |
| − | 3.1.1.1. CVM
| |
| − | 3.1.1.2. CFM
| |
| − | 3.1.1.3. Block Model
| |
| − | 3.1.1.4. Crustal Motion Model
| |
| − | 3.2. UCERF2.0 development
| |
| − | 3.3. UCERF3.0 development
| |
| − | 3.4. Release of multiple southern California CVM’s (CVM-S4 and CVM-H 11.2)
| |
| − | 3.5. Introduction of alternative Geotechnical layer models-based on Vs30
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 4. Review of CVM User Communities to be considered:
| |
| − | 4.1. High frequency wave propagation simulations (>1Hz)
| |
| − | 4.2. Low frequency wave propagation simulations (< 1Hz)
| |
| − | 4.3. Dynamic rupture modeling
| |
| − | 4.4. Seismic hazard PSHA calculations
| |
| − | 4.5. Others to be considered?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 5. Discussion of Capabilities of Proposed state-wide CVM
| |
| − | 5.1. Region to be covered
| |
| − | 5.2. What features will it have (GTL, bathymetry, topography)
| |
| − | 5.3. What users will is support
| |
| − | 5.4. Resolution
| |
| − | 5.5. Expression of uncertainty
| |
| − | 5.6. Arbitrary precision
| |
| − | 5.7. Expression of maximum useful frequency or resolution
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 6. Model construction, implementation, and delivery
| |
| − | 6.1. New model development
| |
| − | 6.2. Combining or integrating best of existing models
| |
| − | 6.3. Management of alternative models
| |
| − | 6.4. Blending of existing models
| |
| − | 6.5. Delivery of model to end-users
| |
| − | 6.6. Delivery of model to model-developers
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 7. Evaluation of Candidate and Alternative Models
| |
| − | 7.1. Proposed use of wave propagation simulations and comparison of seismograms to observations to evaluate alternative models
| |
| − | 7.2. Description of existing SCEC CVM evaluation system (developed for CVM-H,CVM-S)
| |
| − | 7.3. Additional capabilities needed in an automated testing system which can repeat the same simulation and same evaluation tests with alternative models
| |
| − | 7.4. Selection of goodness of fit metrics
| |
| − | 7.5. Selection of goodness reference earthquakes distributed around the state and associated observational datasets
| |
| − | 7.6. Level of support by SCEC for alternative models
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 8. Review of existing models
| |
| − | 8.1. CVM-S4 (Magistrale)
| |
| − | 8.2. CVM-S4 3D inversion update (Chen)
| |
| − | 8.3. CVM-H 11.2 (Shaw)
| |
| − | 8.4. CVM-H-based Central California update (Tape)
| |
| − | 8.5. USGS Central California Model (Aagaard)
| |
| − | 8.6. Lin-Thurber state-wide model (Lin)
| |
| − | 8.7. Hauksson model (Hauksson)
| |
| − | 8.8. Graves Mendicino Model (Graves)
| |
| − | 8.9. Thurber Northern California Model (Thurber)
| |
| − | 8.10. Reno Nevada Model (Magistrale)
| |
| − | 8.11. Las Vegas Nevada Model (Magistrale)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 9. External Groups with CVM Development Tools, Interests, Capabilities
| |
| − | 9.1. IRIS
| |
| − | 9.2. USGS
| |
| − | 9.3. Others?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 10. Technical Development Approach
| |
| − | 10.1. Development of CVM software:
| |
| − | 10.2. UCVM software is intended to support statewide-CVM development.
| |
| − | 10.3. Supports standardized interface that can access multiple underlying models
| |
| − | 10.3.1. CVM-S4
| |
| − | 10.3.2. CVM-H 11.2
| |
| − | 10.3.3. USGS Central California Model
| |
| − | 10.3.4. Lin-Thurber
| |
| − | 10.3.5. 1D background models
| |
| − | 10.4. Supports state-wide topography, bathymetry models
| |
| − | 10.5. Supports application of state-wide geotechnical layer based on Wills/Wald Vs30
| |
| − | 10.6. Supports creation and delivery of etree models
| |
| − | 10.7. Supports query by depth and query by elevation
| |
| − | 10.8. Supports creation of large meshes
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 10. Tools required for Model Development
| |
| − | 10.1. Automated CVM evaluation capabilities using wave propagation simulations
| |
| − | 10.2. Mesh construction
| |
| − | 10.3. Combining alternative models (e.g. Lin-Thurber with CVM-H 11.2)
| |
| − | 10.4. Mesh slices and profiles
| |
| − | 10.5. Model volume visualization
| |
| − | 10.6. Migration between existing model formats (USGS e-tree, Gocad voxels, CVM-S objects, Lin-Thurber tables)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 11. Software development activities and priorities
| |
| − | 11.1. Discussion of current UCVM capabilities
| |
| − | 11.2. Discussion of software development priorities
| |
