Difference between revisions of "CyberShake Study 22.12"

From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 234: Line 234:
  
 
In the future we plan for this approach to be implemented in UCVM, and we can simplify the CyberShake query code.
 
In the future we plan for this approach to be implemented in UCVM, and we can simplify the CyberShake query code.
 +
 +
=== Impact on hazard ===
 +
 +
Below are hazard curves calculated with the old approach, and with the implementation described above.
 +
 +
{|
 +
| [[File:WNGC_run8695_v_8693_10sec.png|thumb|black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs|400px]]
 +
| [[File:WNGC_run8695_v_8693_5sec.png|thumb|black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs|400px]]
 +
| [[File:WNGC_run8695_v_8693_3sec.png|thumb|black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs|400px]]
 +
| [[File:WNGC_run8695_v_8693_2sec.png|thumb|black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs|400px]]
 +
|}
  
 
== Rupture Generator ==
 
== Rupture Generator ==
 +
 +
=== Initial Findings ===
  
 
In determining what rupture generator to use for this study, we performed tests with WNGC, USC, PAS, and STNI, and compared hazard curves generated with v5.4.2 to those from Study 15.4:
 
In determining what rupture generator to use for this study, we performed tests with WNGC, USC, PAS, and STNI, and compared hazard curves generated with v5.4.2 to those from Study 15.4:
Line 300: Line 313:
 
| [[File:STNI_8689_v5.4.2_spectral_s68_r7.png|thumb|300px]]
 
| [[File:STNI_8689_v5.4.2_spectral_s68_r7.png|thumb|300px]]
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
=== v5.5.2 ===
  
 
We decided to try v5.5.2 of the rupture generator, which typically has less spectral content at short periods:
 
We decided to try v5.5.2 of the rupture generator, which typically has less spectral content at short periods:
 
  
 
{|
 
{|
Line 311: Line 325:
 
| [[File:WNGC_8685_v5.4.2_spectral_s68_r7.png|thumb|300px]]
 
| [[File:WNGC_8685_v5.4.2_spectral_s68_r7.png|thumb|300px]]
 
| [[File:WNGC_8693_v5.5.2_spectral_s68_r7.png|thumb|300px]]
 
| [[File:WNGC_8693_v5.5.2_spectral_s68_r7.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
|}
 +
 +
Comparison hazard curves for the three rupture generators, using no taper
 +
 +
{|
 +
! Site !! 10 sec !! 5 sec !! 3 sec !! 2 sec
 +
|-
 +
! WNGC
 +
| [[File:WNGC_rg_compare_10sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:WNGC_rg_compare_5sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:WNGC_rg_compare_3sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:WNGC_rg_compare_2sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
|-
 +
! USC
 +
| [[File:USC_rg_compare_notaper_10sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:USC_rg_compare_notaper_5sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:USC_rg_compare_notaper_3sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:USC_rg_compare_notaper_2sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
|}
 +
 +
Comparison curves for the three rupture generators, using the smaller value in the velocity model.
 +
 +
{|
 +
! Site !! 10 sec !! 5 sec !! 3 sec !! 2 sec
 +
|-
 +
! STNI
 +
| [[File:STNI_rg_compare_taper_10sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:STNI_rg_compare_taper_5sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:STNI_rg_compare_taper_3sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:STNI_rg_compare_taper_2sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
|-
 +
! PAS
 +
| [[File:PAS_rg_compare_taper_10sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:PAS_rg_compare_taper_5sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:PAS_rg_compare_taper_3sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 +
| [[File:PAS_rg_compare_taper_2sec.png|thumb|300px]]
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 456: Line 506:
 
| [[File:PLS_run4370_full_spectra.png|thumb|250px]]
 
| [[File:PLS_run4370_full_spectra.png|thumb|250px]]
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
== Seismogram Length ==
 +
 +
Originally we proposed a seismogram length of 500 sec.  We examined seismograms for our most distance event-station pairs for this study and concluded that most stop having any meaningful signal by around 325 sec.  Thus, we are reducing the seismogram length to 400 sec to ensure some margin of error.
  
 
== Verification ==
 
== Verification ==
Line 526: Line 580:
 
|-
 
|-
 
! 4 site average
 
! 4 site average
| || ||
+
| 31005 || 92 || 792
|-
 
! Scaled (est)
 
|  ||  ||  
 
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
1078 node-hrs x 335 sites + 10% overrun margin gives an estimate of 292k node-hours for broadband calculations.
  
 
=== Data Estimates ===
 
=== Data Estimates ===
  
 
==== Summit ====
 
==== Summit ====
 +
 +
These estimates assume a 400 sec seismogram.
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
Line 541: Line 596:
 
|-
 
|-
 
! 4 site average (GB)
 
! 4 site average (GB)
| 177 || 1533 || 1533 || 282
+
| 177 || 1533 || 1533 || 225
 
|-
 
|-
 
! Total for 335 sites (TB)
 
! Total for 335 sites (TB)
| 57.8 || 501.4 || 501.4 || 92.1
+
| 57.8 || 501.4 || 501.4 || 73.6
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 571: Line 626:
 
=== Science to-dos ===
 
=== Science to-dos ===
  
*Run WNGC and USC with updated velocity model.
+
*<s>Run WNGC and USC with updated velocity model.</s>
 
*Redo validation for Northridge and Landers with updated velocity model.
 
*Redo validation for Northridge and Landers with updated velocity model.
*For each validation event, calculate BBP results, CS results, and CS results with BBP Vs30 values
+
*For each validation event, calculate BBP results, CS results
 
*Check for spectral discontinuities around 1 Hz
 
*Check for spectral discontinuities around 1 Hz
 
*<s>Decide if we should stick with rvfrac=0.8 or allow it to vary</s>
 
*<s>Decide if we should stick with rvfrac=0.8 or allow it to vary</s>
*Determine appropriate SGT, low-frequency, and high-frequency seismogram durations
+
*<s>Determine appropriate SGT, low-frequency, and high-frequency seismogram durations</s>
 
*Update high-frequency Vs30 to use released Thompson values
 
*Update high-frequency Vs30 to use released Thompson values
 
*<s>Modify RupGen-v5.5.2 into CyberShake API</s>
 
*<s>Modify RupGen-v5.5.2 into CyberShake API</s>
 
*<s>Test RupGen-v5.5.2</s>
 
*<s>Test RupGen-v5.5.2</s>
 +
*Update to using v6.1.1 of hb_high.
  
 
=== Technical to-dos ===
 
=== Technical to-dos ===
Line 593: Line 649:
 
*<s>Update curve generation to generate curves with more points</s>
 
*<s>Update curve generation to generate curves with more points</s>
 
*<s>Test OpenMP version of DirectSynth</s>
 
*<s>Test OpenMP version of DirectSynth</s>
*Migrate Study 18.8 from moment to focal.
+
*<s>Migrate Study 18.8 from moment to focal.</s>
 +
*Delete Study 18.8 off of moment.
 +
*<s>Move Study 13.4 output files from CARC to OLCF HPSS.</s>
 +
*Move Study 14.2 output files from CARC to OLCF HPSS.
 +
*Switch to using OMP version of DS code by default.
 +
*Tag code.
  
 
== Presentations, Posters, and Papers ==
 
== Presentations, Posters, and Papers ==

Revision as of 00:10, 30 November 2022

CyberShake Study 22.10 is a proposed study in Southern California which will include deterministic low-frequency (0-1 Hz) and stochastic high-frequency (1-50 Hz) simulations. We will use the Graves & Pitarka (2022) rupture generator and the high frequency modules from the SCEC Broadband Platform v22.4.

Status

This study is in the planning phase. We estimate calculations will begin in October 2022.

Data Products

Data products will be posted here when the study is completed.

Science Goals

The science goals for this study are:

  • Calculate a regional CyberShake model for southern California using an updated rupture generator.
  • Calculate an updated broadband CyberShake model.
  • Sample variability in rupture velocity as part of the rupture generator.

Technical Goals

The technical goals for this study are:

  • Use an optimized OpenMP version of the post-processing code.
  • Bundle the SGT and post-processing jobs to run on large Condor glide-ins, taking advantage of queue policies favoring large jobs.

Sites

We will use the standard 335 southern California sites (same as Study 21.12). The order of execution will be:

  • Sites of interest
  • 20 km grid
  • 10 km grid
  • Selected 5 km grid sites
Study 22.10 site map.png

Velocity Model

We are planning to use CVM-S4.26 with a GTL applied, and the CVM-S4 1D background model outside of the region boundaries.

We are investigating applying the Ely-Jordan GTL down to 700 m instead of the default of 350m. We extracted profiles for a series of southern California CyberShake sites, with no GTL, a GTL applied down to 350m, and a GTL applied down to 700m.

Sites (the CVM-S4.26 basins are outlined in red):

GTL profile sites.png

These are for sites outside of the CVM-S4.26 basins:

Site No GTL 700m GTL Smaller value, extracted from mesh
LAPD
Cvmsi default LAPD.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m LAPD.png
LAPD ifless profile.png
s764
Cvmsi default s764.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m s764.png
S764 ifless profile.png
s568
Cvmsi default s568.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m s568.png
S568 ifless profile.png
s035
Cvmsi default s035.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m s035.png
S035 ifless profile.png
PERR
Cvmsi default PERR.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m PERR.png
PERR ifless profile.png
MRVY
Cvmsi default MRVY.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m MRVY.png
MRVY ifless profile.png
s211
Cvmsi default s211.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m s211.png
S211 ifless profile.png

These are for sites inside of the CVM-S4.26 basins:

Site No GTL 700m GTL Smaller value
s117
Cvmsi default s117.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m s117.png
S117 ifless profile.png
USC
Cvmsi default USC.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m USC.png
USC ifless profile.png
WNGC
Cvmsi default WNGC.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m WNGC.png
WNGC ifless profile.png
PEDL
Cvmsi default PEDL.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m PEDL.png
PEDL ifless profile.png
SBSM
Cvmsi default SBSM.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m SBSM.png
SBSM ifless profile.png
SVD
Cvmsi default SVD.png
Cvmsi elygtl ely z 700m SVD.png
SVD ifless profile.png

Proposed Algorithm

Our proposed algorithm for generating the velocity model is as follows:

  1. Set the surface mesh point to a depth of 25m.
  2. Query the CVM-S4.26.M01 model ('cvmsi' string in UCVM) for each grid point.
  3. Calculate the Ely taper at that point using 700m as the transition depth.
  4. Compare the values before and after the taper modification; at each grid point down to the transition depth, use the value from the method with the lower Vs value.
  5. Check values for Vp/Vs ratio, minimum Vs, Inf/NaNs, etc.

Value constraints

We impose the following constraints on velocity mesh values:

  1. Vp >= 1700 m/s. If lower, Vp is set to 1700.
  2. Vs >= 500 m/s. If lower, Vs is set to 500.
  3. rho >= 1700 km/m3. If lower, rho is set to 1700.
  4. Vp/Vs >= 1.45. If not, Vs is set to Vp/1.45.

We will add the following additional constraints:

  1. If Vs<500 m/s, calculate the Vp/Vs ratio, set Vs=500, then set Vp=Vs*(Vp/Vs ratio).
  2. Apply Vp clamp after Vs check.

Cross-sections

Below are cross-sections of the TEST site velocity model at depths down to 600m for CVM-S4.26.M01, the taper to 700m, the lesser of the two values, and the % difference.

Note that the top two slices use a different color scale.

Depth CVM-S4.26.M01 Ely taper to 700m Selecting smaller value % difference, smaller value vs S4.26.M01
0m (queried at 25m depth)
TEST none horiz z0.png
TEST all horiz z0.png
TEST ifless horiz z0.png
TEST percentdiff horiz z0.png
100m
TEST none horiz z1.png
TEST all horiz z1.png
TEST ifless horiz z1.png
TEST percentdiff horiz z1.png
200m
TEST none horiz z2.png
TEST all horiz z2.png
TEST ifless horiz z2.png
TEST percentdiff horiz z2.png
300m
TEST none horiz z3.png
TEST all horiz z3.png
TEST ifless horiz z3.png
TEST percentdiff horiz z3.png
400m
TEST none horiz z4.png
TEST all horiz z4.png
TEST ifless horiz z4.png
TEST percentdiff horiz z4.png
500m
TEST none horiz z5.png
TEST all horiz z5.png
TEST ifless horiz z5.png
TEST percentdiff horiz z5.png
600m
TEST none horiz z6.png
TEST all horiz z6.png
TEST ifless horiz z6.png
TEST percentdiff horiz z6.png

Implementation details

To support the Ely taper approach where the smaller value is selected, the following algorithmic changes were made to the CyberShake mesh generation code. Since the UCVM C API doesn't support removing models, we couldn't just add the 'elygtl' model - it would then be included in every query, and we need to run queries with and without it to make the comparison. We also must include the Ely interpolator, since all that querying the elygtl model does is populates the gtl part of the properties with the Vs30 value, and it's the interpolator which takes this and the crustal model info and generates the taper.

  • The decomposition is done by either X-parallel or Y-parallel stripes, which have a constant depth. Check the depth to see if it is shallower than the transition depth.
  • If so, initialize the elygtl model using ucvm_elygtl_model_init(), if uninitialized. Set the id to UCVM_MAX_MODELS-1. There's no way to get model id info from UCVM, so we use UCVM_MAX_MODELS-1 as it is 29, we are very unlikely to load 29 models, and therefore unlikely to have an id conflict.
  • Change the depth value of the points to query to the transition depth. This is because we need to know the crustal model Vs value at the transition depth, so that the Ely interpolator can match it.
  • Query the crustal model again, with the modified depths.
  • Modify the 'domain' parameter in the properties data structure to UCVM_DOMAIN_INTERP, to indicate that we will be using an interpolator.
  • Change the depth value of the points to query back to the correct depth, so that the interpolator can work correctly on them.
  • Query the elygtl using ucvm_elygtl_model_query() and the correct depth.
  • Call the interpolator for each point independently, using the correct depth.
  • For each point, choose to use either the original crustal data or the Ely taper data, depending on which has the lower Vs.

In the future we plan for this approach to be implemented in UCVM, and we can simplify the CyberShake query code.

Impact on hazard

Below are hazard curves calculated with the old approach, and with the implementation described above.

black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs
black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs
black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs
black=using CVM-S4.26.M01,blue=using approach with smaller Vs

Rupture Generator

Initial Findings

In determining what rupture generator to use for this study, we performed tests with WNGC, USC, PAS, and STNI, and compared hazard curves generated with v5.4.2 to those from Study 15.4:

Site 10 sec 5 sec 3 sec 2 sec
WNGC
WNGC run8685 v 3861 10sec.png
WNGC run8685 v 3861 5sec.png
WNGC run8685 v 3861 3sec.png
WNGC run8685 v 3861 2sec.png
USC
USC run8691 v 3970 10sec.png
USC run8691 v 3970 5sec.png
USC run8691 v 3970 3sec.png
USC run8691 v 3970 2sec.png
PAS
PAS run8687 v 3878 10sec.png
PAS run8687 v 3878 5sec.png
PAS run8687 v 3878 3sec.png
PAS run8687 v 3878 2sec.png
STNI
STNI run8689 v 3873 10sec.png
STNI run8689 v 3873 5sec.png
STNI run8689 v 3873 3sec.png
STNI run8689 v 3873 2sec.png

Digging in further, it appears the elevated hazard curves for WNGC at 2 and 3 seconds are predominately due to large-magnitude southern San Andreas events producing larger ground motions.

Scatter plot comparing the mean 3sec RotD50 for each rupture, between v3.3.1 and v5.4.2
Scatter plot comparing the mean 3sec RotD50 for each rupture, between v3.3.1 and v5.4.2, SAF events>M8 excluded
Scatter plot comparing the mean 3sec RotD50 for each rupture, between v3.3.1 and v5.4.2, SAF events>M7.5 excluded

USC, PAS, and STNI also all see larger ground motions at 2-3 seconds from these same events, but the effect isn't as strong, so it only shows up in the tails of the hazard curves.

We honed in on source 68, rupture 7, a M8.45 on the southern San Andreas which produced the largest WNGC ground motions at 3 seconds, up to 5.1g. We calculated spectral plots for v3.3.1 and v5.4.2 for all 4 sites:

Site v3.3.1 v5.4.2
WNGC
WNGC 3861 v3.3.1 spectral s68 r7.png
WNGC 8685 v5.4.2 spectral s68 r7.png
USC
USC 3970 v3.3.1 spectral s68 r7.png
USC 8691 v5.4.2 spectral s68 r7.png
PAS
PAS 3878 v3.3.1 spectral s68 r7.png
PAS 8687 v5.4.2 spectral s68 r7.png
STNI
STNI 3873 v3.3.1 spectral s68 r7.png
STNI 8689 v5.4.2 spectral s68 r7.png

v5.5.2

We decided to try v5.5.2 of the rupture generator, which typically has less spectral content at short periods:

Site v3.3.1 v5.4.2 v5.5.2
WNGC
WNGC 3861 v3.3.1 spectral s68 r7.png
WNGC 8685 v5.4.2 spectral s68 r7.png
WNGC 8693 v5.5.2 spectral s68 r7.png

Comparison hazard curves for the three rupture generators, using no taper

Site 10 sec 5 sec 3 sec 2 sec
WNGC
WNGC rg compare 10sec.png
WNGC rg compare 5sec.png
WNGC rg compare 3sec.png
WNGC rg compare 2sec.png
USC
USC rg compare notaper 10sec.png
USC rg compare notaper 5sec.png
USC rg compare notaper 3sec.png
USC rg compare notaper 2sec.png

Comparison curves for the three rupture generators, using the smaller value in the velocity model.

Site 10 sec 5 sec 3 sec 2 sec
STNI
STNI rg compare taper 10sec.png
STNI rg compare taper 5sec.png
STNI rg compare taper 3sec.png
STNI rg compare taper 2sec.png
PAS
PAS rg compare taper 10sec.png
PAS rg compare taper 5sec.png
PAS rg compare taper 3sec.png
PAS rg compare taper 2sec.png

High-frequency codes

For this study, we will use the Graves & Pitarka high frequency module (hb_high) from the Broadband Platform v22.4, hb_high_v6.0.5. We will use the following parameters. Parameters in bold have been changed for this study.

Parameter Value
stress_average 50
rayset 2,1,2
siteamp 1
nbu 4 (not used)
ifft 0 (not used)
flol 0.02 (not used)
fhil 19.9 (not used)
irand Seed used for generating SRF
tlen Seismogram length, in sec
dt 0.01
fmax 10 (not used)
kappa 0.04
qfexp 0.6
mean_rvfac 0.775
range_rvfac 0.1
rvfac Calculated using BBP hfsims_cfg.py code
shal_rvfac 0.6
deep_rvfac 0.6
czero 2
c_alpha -99
sm -1
vr -1
vsmoho 999.9
nlskip -99
vpsig 0
vshsig 0
rhosig 0
qssig 0
icflag 1
velname -1
fa_sig1 0
fa_sig2 0
rvsig1 0.1
ipdur_model 11
ispar_adjust 1
targ_mag -1
fault_area -1
default_c0 57
default_c1 34

Spectral Content around 1 Hz

We investigated the spectral content of the Broadband CyberShake results in the 0.5-3 second range, to look for any discontinuities.

The plot below is from WNGC, Study 15.12 (run ID 4293).

Spectral plot for WNGC from Study 15.12, target of 0.3676g @ 3 sec. Mean is in red.

Below is a plot of the hypocenters from the 706 rupture variations which meet the target.

WNGC run4293 target event hypos.png

These events have a different distribution than the rupture variations as a whole.

Fault Percent of target RVs Percent of all RVs
San Andreas 60 44
Elsinore 21 9
San Jacinto 13 8
Other 6 39

Additionally, 88% of the selected events have a magnitude greater than the average for their source. 4% are average, and 8% are lower.

Below is a spectral plot but which includes all rupture variations and the overall mean (in orange).

Spectral plot for WNGC from Study 15.12, all variations.

Additional Sites

We created spectral plots for 7 additional sites (STNI, SBSM, PAS, LGU, LBP, ALP, PLS), located here:

Additional spectral plot sites.png
STNI SBSM PAS LGU LBP ALP PLS
STNI run4285 full spectra.png
SBSM run4291 full spectra.png
PAS run4282 full spectra.png
LGU run4321 full spectra.png
LBP run4317 full spectra.png
ALP run4298 full spectra.png
PLS run4370 full spectra.png

Seismogram Length

Originally we proposed a seismogram length of 500 sec. We examined seismograms for our most distance event-station pairs for this study and concluded that most stop having any meaningful signal by around 325 sec. Thus, we are reducing the seismogram length to 400 sec to ensure some margin of error.

Verification

Updates and Enhancements

Output Data Products

File-based data products

We plan to produce the following data products, which will be stored at CARC:

Deterministic

  • Seismograms: 2-component seismograms, 10000 timesteps (500 sec) each.
  • PSA: X and Y spectral acceleration at 44 periods (10, 9.5, 9, 8.5, 8, 7.5, 7, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 5, 4.8, 4.6, 4.4, 4.2, 4, 3.8, 3.6, 3.4, 3.2, 3, 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2, 1.66667, 1.42857, 1.25, 1.11111, 1, .66667, .5, .4, .33333, .285714, .25, .22222, .2, .16667, .142857, .125, .11111, .1 sec)
  • RotD: PGV, and RotD50, the RotD50 azimuth, and RotD100 at 25 periods (20, 15, 12, 10, 8.5, 7.5, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 5, 4.4, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2, 1.7, 1.5, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 1)
  • Durations: for X and Y components, energy integral, Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity (CAV), and for both velocity and acceleration, 5-75%, 5-95%, and 20-80%.

Broadband

  • Seismograms: 2-component seismograms, 50000 timesteps (500 sec) each.
  • PSA: X and Y spectral acceleration at 44 periods (10, 9.5, 9, 8.5, 8, 7.5, 7, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 5, 4.8, 4.6, 4.4, 4.2, 4, 3.8, 3.6, 3.4, 3.2, 3, 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2, 1.66667, 1.42857, 1.25, 1.11111, 1, .66667, .5, .4, .33333, .285714, .25, .22222, .2, .16667, .142857, .125, .11111, .1 sec)
  • RotD: PGA, PGV, and RotD50, the RotD50 azimuth, and RotD100 at 66 periods (20, 15, 12, 10, 8.5, 7.5, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 5, 4.4, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2, 1.7, 1.5, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 1, 0.85, 0.75, 0.65, 0.6, 0.55, 0.5, 0.45, 0.4, 0.35, 0.3, 0.28, 0.26, 0.24, 0.22, 0.2, 0.17, 0.15, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11, 0.1, 0.085, 0.075, 0.065, 0.06, 0.055, 0.05, 0.045, 0.04, 0.035, 0.032, 0.029, 0.025, 0.022, 0.02, 0.017, 0.015, 0.013, 0.012, 0.011, 0.01)
  • Durations: for X and Y components, energy integral, Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity (CAV), and for both velocity and acceleration, 5-75%, 5-95%, and 20-80%.

Database data products

We plan to store the following data products in the database on moment:

Deterministic

  • RotD50 and RotD100 for 6 periods (10, 7.5, 5, 4, 3, 2)
  • Duration: acceleration 5-75% and 5-95%, for both X and Y

Broadband

  • RotD50 and RotD100 for PGA, PGV, and 19 periods (10, 7.5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.75, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.075, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01)
  • Duration: acceleration 5-75% and 5-95%, for both X and Y

Computational and Data Estimates

Computational Estimates

We based these estimates on scaling from the average of sites USC, STNI, PAS, and WNGC, which have within 1% of the average number of variations per site.

SGT calculation
UCVM runtime UCVM nodes SGT runtime (both components) SGT nodes Other SGT workflow jobs Summit Total
4 site average 436 sec 50 3776 sec 67 8700 node-sec 78.8 node-hrs

78.8 node-hrs x 335 sites + 10% overrun margin gives us an estimate of 29.0k node-hours for SGT calculation.

PP calculation, with the OpenMP optimization
DirectSynth runtime DirectSynth nodes Summit Total
4 site average 31500 100 875

875 node-hours x 335 sites + 10% overrun margin gives an estimate of 322k node-hours for post-processing.

Broadband calculation
PMC runtime PMC nodes Summit Total
4 site average 31005 92 792

1078 node-hrs x 335 sites + 10% overrun margin gives an estimate of 292k node-hours for broadband calculations.

Data Estimates

Summit

These estimates assume a 400 sec seismogram.

Data estimates
Velocity mesh SGTs size Temp data Output data
4 site average (GB) 177 1533 1533 225
Total for 335 sites (TB) 57.8 501.4 501.4 73.6

CARC

We estimate 92.1 TB in output data, which will be transferred back to CARC.

shock-carc

The study should use approximately ??? GB in workflow log space on /home/shock. This drive has approximately ??? TB free.

moment database

The PeakAmplitudes table uses approximately 99 bytes per entry.

99 bytes/entry * 34 entries/event (11 det + 25 stoch) * 622,636 events/site * 335 sites = 654 GB. The drive on moment with the mysql database has 771 GB free, so we will plan to migrate Study 17.3 and Study 18.8 off of moment to free up additional room.

Lessons Learned

Stress Test

Performance Metrics

Production Checklist

Science to-dos

  • Run WNGC and USC with updated velocity model.
  • Redo validation for Northridge and Landers with updated velocity model.
  • For each validation event, calculate BBP results, CS results
  • Check for spectral discontinuities around 1 Hz
  • Decide if we should stick with rvfrac=0.8 or allow it to vary
  • Determine appropriate SGT, low-frequency, and high-frequency seismogram durations
  • Update high-frequency Vs30 to use released Thompson values
  • Modify RupGen-v5.5.2 into CyberShake API
  • Test RupGen-v5.5.2
  • Update to using v6.1.1 of hb_high.

Technical to-dos

  • Integrate refactoring of BBP codes into latest BBP release
  • Switch to using github repo version of CyberShake on Summit
  • Update to latest UCVM (v22.7)
  • Switch to optimized version of rupture generator
  • Test DirectSynth code with fixed memory leak from Frontera
  • Switch to using Pegasus-supported interface to Globus transfers
  • Test bundled glide-in jobs for SGT and DirectSynth jobs
  • Fix seg fault in PMC running broadband processing
  • Update curve generation to generate curves with more points
  • Test OpenMP version of DirectSynth
  • Migrate Study 18.8 from moment to focal.
  • Delete Study 18.8 off of moment.
  • Move Study 13.4 output files from CARC to OLCF HPSS.
  • Move Study 14.2 output files from CARC to OLCF HPSS.
  • Switch to using OMP version of DS code by default.
  • Tag code.

Presentations, Posters, and Papers