Difference between revisions of "GMSV Simulation Datasets"

From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
== Discussion of Data Sets ==
 
== Discussion of Data Sets ==
There are some specific simulations that were run for GMSV on the BBP.  RWG designed the rupture descriptions
+
# Several LA region sites were selected, CyberShake ruptures identified, and then run in BBP.
 +
 
 +
#There are some specific simulations that were run for GMSV on the BBP.  RWG designed the rupture descriptions
 
and they were run by SCEC.  The scenarios are:
 
and they were run by SCEC.  The scenarios are:
 
*Elysian Park
 
*Elysian Park
Line 19: Line 21:
 
*No. San Andreas
 
*No. San Andreas
  
In addition, a student working with FZ has been using the CyberShake results. Also, the GMSV group has used the BBP Part A & B results.
+
#In addition, a student working with FZ has been using the CyberShake results. Also, the GMSV group has used the BBP Part A & B results.
  
 
== Related Entries ==
 
== Related Entries ==
 
*[[CME_Project]]
 
*[[CME_Project]]
 
*[[GMSV]]
 
*[[GMSV]]

Revision as of 00:07, 1 February 2018

Data sets for upcoming SCEC/GMSV meeting:

GMSV group with data last March 2017

This includes Part-A data for Landers, Loma Prieta, Northridge, and North Palm Springs for all methods. Additionally, there's data for some Larger Magnitude events, like Elysian Park, Hayward, North and South San Andreas, and San Jacinto.

Full validation set of simulations (Parts A & B)

Discussion of Data Sets

  1. Several LA region sites were selected, CyberShake ruptures identified, and then run in BBP.
  1. There are some specific simulations that were run for GMSV on the BBP. RWG designed the rupture descriptions

and they were run by SCEC. The scenarios are:

  • Elysian Park
  • So. San Andreas
  • San Jacinto
  • Hayward
  • No. San Andreas
  1. In addition, a student working with FZ has been using the CyberShake results. Also, the GMSV group has used the BBP Part A & B results.

Related Entries