Difference between revisions of "CyberShake Production Run"

From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 10: Line 10:
 
*http://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/CyberShake_Study_16.9
 
*http://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/CyberShake_Study_16.9
 
(3) Do the CyberShake meshes produced by UCVM match the expected CVM models including min Vs floor and Vp/Vs ration ?
 
(3) Do the CyberShake meshes produced by UCVM match the expected CVM models including min Vs floor and Vp/Vs ration ?
*http://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/CyberShake_Study_16.9
+
*http://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/CyberShake_Study_16.9 (min Vs, min Vp, min Rho, vp/vs > 1.45)
 
(4) Do we include the N. SAF events for sites within 200km, and exclude N.SAF events for sites more than 200km away ?
 
(4) Do we include the N. SAF events for sites within 200km, and exclude N.SAF events for sites more than 200km away ?
 
*
 
*

Revision as of 19:28, 9 December 2016

Planning for the next CyberShake Production Run

Planned Production Run

Points to Finalize

(1) Are the current CCA06 3D velocity model and 1D velocity model ready for use ?

(2) Are the full N.SAF and S.SAF CVMs ready for use, including interfaces between CVMs ?

(3) Do the CyberShake meshes produced by UCVM match the expected CVM models including min Vs floor and Vp/Vs ration ?

(4) Do we include the N. SAF events for sites within 200km, and exclude N.SAF events for sites more than 200km away ?

(5) Does the current CyberShake software stack on Blue Waters and Titan produce results equivalent to the CyberShake Study 15.4 software stack ?

Related Entries