BBP Validation 2020

Intro

We discussed the following focus areas to consider for 2020

Evaluate source variability and parameters space sensitivity
- Will require more than 50 realizations maybe 200?
- Focus in-close where path effects are not controlling the results (within 1 fault length)
  - M-A
  - Area changes (DDW only?)
  - Rupture velocity
  - Dip
  - Moment-rate (using duration)
Evaluate simulations for other metrics
- Validation metrics that already exists (duration, inter-frequency correlation, Anderson GOF, etc.)?
- New validation metrics?
Events to consider/discussion notes
- Group validation of RidgeCrest Earthquake Sequence (3 main events M5.4, 6.4, 7.1)
- Amatrice:
  - another Italian event
- El Mayor
  - multi-segment but low benefit as recordings are all far field
- Kumamoto (M7, 2016)
  - great event to do
  - could use existing Japanese vmod
  - part of blind simulation exercise at 2021 ESG6 (http://www.esg6.jp/index.html)
  - issue is access to processed data (not done by PEER)
- Taiwan (Meinong, M6.4 2016)
  - issue is access to processed data (not done by PEER)

New velocity model: South Sierra Nevada (ssn) TODO: post ppt from Rob (2/21/2020)
- Focus on near-field (avoid basins); rough proposed box TODO: post pic from Christine (3/18/2020)
- Need new GFs for UCSB and new crustal amps for EXSIM (completed 3/25/2020)
Use PEER dataset for ground motions.
- Some are missing; PEER notified 2/19/2020.
Start with M5.4, then 6.4, then 7.1
- M5.4 SRC from Graves (3/25/2020)