Difference between revisions of "CyberShake Study 2.3"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | CyberShake Study 2.3 is a proposed study to calculate hazard curves under [[CyberShake 1.5]] using CVM-S and CVM-H with the RWG V3.0.3 SGT code and AWP-ODC-SGT, and the Graves and Pitarka (2010) rupture variations. The goal is to calculate the same Southern California site list ( | + | CyberShake Study 2.3 is a proposed study to calculate hazard curves under [[CyberShake 1.5]] using CVM-S and CVM-H with the RWG V3.0.3 SGT code and AWP-ODC-SGT, and the Graves and Pitarka (2010) rupture variations. The goal is to calculate the same Southern California site list (286 sites) as for past CyberShake studies so we can produce comparison curves and maps, and understand the impact of the SGT codes and velocity models on the CyberShake seismic hazard. |
| + | |||
| + | == Proposed sites == | ||
| + | |||
| + | We are proposing to run 286 sites around Southern California. Those sites include 46 points of interest, 27 precarious rock sites, 23 broadband station locations, 43 20 km gridded sites, and 147 10 km gridded sites. All of them fall within the Southern California box except for Diablo Canyon and Pioneer Town. You can get a CSV file listing the sites [[Media:Sites_for_study2_3.csv|here]]. A KML file listing the sites is available [[Media:Sites_for_study2_3.kml|here]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[File:Study_2_3_sites.png|400px|thumb|left|Fig 1: Sites selected for Study 2.3 Purple are gridded sites, red are precarious rocks, orange are SCSN stations, and yellow are sites of interest.]] | ||
| + | |||
== Computational and Data Estimates == | == Computational and Data Estimates == | ||
| − | We are planning to use Blue Waters, Stampede, and Kraken for this calculation. We plan to calculate | + | We are planning to use Blue Waters, Stampede, and Kraken for this calculation. We plan to calculate 286 sets of 2-component SGTs for each of RWG CVM-S, RWG CVM-H, AWP CVM-S, AWP CVM-H for a total of 1144 sets of SGTs. |
We estimate the following requirements for each system. Data estimates are for generated data we may want to keep (SGTs, seismograms, PSA). | We estimate the following requirements for each system. Data estimates are for generated data we may want to keep (SGTs, seismograms, PSA). | ||
| Line 11: | Line 18: | ||
Use for SGT calculations | Use for SGT calculations | ||
| − | + | 572 sets of AWP SGTs x 5000 SUs/set = 2.9M SUs | |
| − | + | 572 sets of RWG SGTs x 5500 SUs/set = 3.2M SUs | |
| − | Total: ''' | + | Total: '''6.1M SUs''' |
| − | + | 1144 sets of SGTs x 40 GB/set = '''44.7 TB''' | |
=== Stampede === | === Stampede === | ||
| Line 21: | Line 28: | ||
No numbers yet on Stampede post-processing. SGT calculations were about 4x faster on Stampede than Kraken. If we assume we can get 2x improvement: | No numbers yet on Stampede post-processing. SGT calculations were about 4x faster on Stampede than Kraken. If we assume we can get 2x improvement: | ||
| − | + | 572 sites x 2750 SUs/site = '''1.6M SUs''' | |
| − | + | 572 sites x 11.6 GB/site = '''6.5 TB''' output data (seismograms, spectral acceleration) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
=== Kraken === | === Kraken === | ||
Use for AWP post-processing | Use for AWP post-processing | ||
| − | + | 572 sites x 5500 SUs/site = '''3.1M SUs''' | |
| − | + | 572 sites x 11.6 GB/site = '''6.5 TB''' output data (seismograms, spectral acceleration) | |
=== SCEC storage === | === SCEC storage === | ||
| − | + | 1144 sites x 11.6 GB/site = '''13.0 TB''' stored output data | |
| − | + | 1144 sites x 4.9 GB/site = '''5.5 TB''' workflow logs | |
Revision as of 23:14, 21 February 2013
CyberShake Study 2.3 is a proposed study to calculate hazard curves under CyberShake 1.5 using CVM-S and CVM-H with the RWG V3.0.3 SGT code and AWP-ODC-SGT, and the Graves and Pitarka (2010) rupture variations. The goal is to calculate the same Southern California site list (286 sites) as for past CyberShake studies so we can produce comparison curves and maps, and understand the impact of the SGT codes and velocity models on the CyberShake seismic hazard.
Contents
Proposed sites
We are proposing to run 286 sites around Southern California. Those sites include 46 points of interest, 27 precarious rock sites, 23 broadband station locations, 43 20 km gridded sites, and 147 10 km gridded sites. All of them fall within the Southern California box except for Diablo Canyon and Pioneer Town. You can get a CSV file listing the sites here. A KML file listing the sites is available here.
Computational and Data Estimates
We are planning to use Blue Waters, Stampede, and Kraken for this calculation. We plan to calculate 286 sets of 2-component SGTs for each of RWG CVM-S, RWG CVM-H, AWP CVM-S, AWP CVM-H for a total of 1144 sets of SGTs.
We estimate the following requirements for each system. Data estimates are for generated data we may want to keep (SGTs, seismograms, PSA).
Blue Waters
Use for SGT calculations
572 sets of AWP SGTs x 5000 SUs/set = 2.9M SUs 572 sets of RWG SGTs x 5500 SUs/set = 3.2M SUs Total: 6.1M SUs 1144 sets of SGTs x 40 GB/set = 44.7 TB
Stampede
Use for RWG post-processing
No numbers yet on Stampede post-processing. SGT calculations were about 4x faster on Stampede than Kraken. If we assume we can get 2x improvement: 572 sites x 2750 SUs/site = 1.6M SUs 572 sites x 11.6 GB/site = 6.5 TB output data (seismograms, spectral acceleration)
Kraken
Use for AWP post-processing
572 sites x 5500 SUs/site = 3.1M SUs 572 sites x 11.6 GB/site = 6.5 TB output data (seismograms, spectral acceleration)
SCEC storage
1144 sites x 11.6 GB/site = 13.0 TB stored output data 1144 sites x 4.9 GB/site = 5.5 TB workflow logs
