Difference between revisions of "HighF 2018"
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
== Source Models == | == Source Models == | ||
We discussed various sources, both point source (PS) and finite-fault (FF) in the past for our verifications and validation. | 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: | ||
| + | ** [https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/HighF_v14.12_Data_Comparison#Simulation_Results_-_22_May_2016 2016 runs with 2FF and 1 PS] | ||
| − | + | * 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). | |
| − | |||
| − | Rob to follow-up with Wei (last communication was in April 2017). | ||
Proposed models for verification and validation: | 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: | *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. | + | ** 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: *[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: *[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)] | ||
Revision as of 22:52, 19 March 2018
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
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)
Site Selection
Simulation results
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):
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):
Related Pages
