Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The SCEC Broadband Platform: From a Research Platform to an Industry Tool 2013 SCEC Annual Meeting Katie Wooddell.

Published byKory Carr Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The SCEC Broadband Platform: From a Research Platform to an Industry Tool 2013 SCEC Annual Meeting Katie Wooddell."— Presentation transcript:

1 The SCEC Broadband Platform: From a Research Platform to an Industry Tool 2013 SCEC Annual Meeting Katie Wooddell

2 USER SPECIFIED INPUTS Strengths: – Only 2 input files required per scenario – Minimal number of user inputs required – Scenarios easy to define Interface Issues: – Redundant information included in.src file – Fault input and output specified in different coordinates – Need figures to provide a visual check on the scenario Map of the fault relative to the stations Option to preview and select desired rupture models

3 .SRC Inputs M W = 2/3log(M O ) – 6.07 -OR- M W = log(A) + 4 M O = 10^(3/2M W + 9.1050) Where: M O (Nm)

4 .SRC Inputs (36.37, -121.55) STRIKE = 338 + Hypo Along Strike - Hypo Along Strike (Hypo AS, Hypo DD ) (22.28, 9.87)

5 Hypo AS = Flength/2 + Hypo AS = 75.73 Hypo DD = 9.87 (36.37, -121.55) STRIKE = 338 + Hypo Along Strike - Hypo Along Strike Hypo AS = 22.28 Hypo DD = 9.87

6 FIGURES

7 JOINING MULTI-SEGMENT AND COMPLEX RUPTURES Interface Issue: – Platform designed for single, planar fault ruptures – Various ways to link faults, each implying something different about the physics of how linked faults rupture

8 M-A SCALING FOR FORWARD SIMULATIONS Interface Issue: – Specification of M W and Area from Seismic Source Characterization (SSC) (potentially violates scaling assumptions / restrictions used by modelers)

9 San Gregorio San Simeon Hosgri L = 198 km M W = 7.47 L = 107 km M W = 7.21 L = 107 km M W = 7.21 Seismogenic Crust = 15 km Dip = 90 (all segments) W = 15 Seismic Source Characterization Parameters L = 135 km M W = 7.47 L = 73 km M W = 7.21 L = 73 km M W = 7.21 (FROM GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION)(FROM SCALING MODELS) Dip = 90 (all segments) W = 22 “THIN CASE”“THICK CASE”

10 SIMULATION RESULTS: THIN VS. THICK CASE THIN M W = 7.21 W = 15 km L = 107 km THICK M W = 7.21 W = 22 km L = 73 km FIXED HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS

11 SIMULATION RESULTS: THIN VS. THICK CASE FIXED HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS THIN M W = 7.21 W = 15 km L = 107 km THICK M W = 7.21 W = 22 km L = 73 km

12 SIMULATION RESULTS: THIN VS. THICK CASE FIXED HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS THIN M W = 7.21 W = 15 km L = 107 km THICK M W = 7.21 W = 22 km L = 73 km

13 FIXED HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS THIN M W = 7.21 W = 15 km L = 107 km THICK M W = 7.21 W = 22 km L = 73 km

14 SIMULATION RESULTS: THIN VS. THICK CASE THIN M W = 7.21 W = 15 km L = 107 km THICK M W = 7.21 W = 22 km L = 73 km RANDOM HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS

15 SIMULATION RESULTS: THIN VS. THICK CASE THIN M W = 7.21 W = 15 km L = 107 km THICK M W = 7.21 W = 22 km L = 73 km RANDOM HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS

16 SIMULATION RESULTS: THIN VS. THICK CASE THIN M W = 7.21 W = 15 km L = 107 km THICK M W = 7.21 W = 22 km L = 73 km RANDOM HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS

17 RANDOM HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS THIN M W = 7.21 W = 15 km L = 107 km THICK M W = 7.21 W = 22 km L = 73 km

18 GREEN’S FUNCTIONS Interface Issues: – Add Green’s Function capability into the platform or handle them outside? – Adequacy of the current Green’s functions. Do we need full F-K solutions?

19 PREVIEW OF RESULTS NUMBER OF CASES – ~860,000 scenarios submitted in early August – Approx. 75% complete PRELIMINARY SCENARIO RESULTS – M5.5 Reverse fault with (dip = 45, ZTOR = 2.5) – Comparison between GP, SDSU, and ExSIM

20 RANDOM HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS ZTOR = 2.5 km REVERSE SLIP

21 WAVEFORM COMPARISON: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -7.5 km, R JB = 7.5 km, R RUP = 7.9 km

22 WAVEFORM COMPARISON: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -7.5 km, R JB = 7.5 km, R RUP = 7.9 km

23 N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -7.5 km R JB = 7.5 km R RUP = 7.9 km

24 N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -7.5 km R JB = 7.5 km R RUP = 7.9 km

25 WAVEFORM COMPARISON: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION OVER FAULT PLANE: R X = 2.5 km, R JB = 0 km, R RUP = 3.5 km

26 WAVEFORM COMPARISON: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION OVER FAULT PLANE: R X = 2.5 km, R JB = 0 km, R RUP = 3.5 km

27 N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION OVER FAULT PLANE: R X = -2.5 km R JB = 0 km R RUP = 3.5 km

28 VERT RESPONSE SPECTRA: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION OVER FAULT PLANE: R X = -7.5 km R JB = 7.5 km R RUP = 7.9 km

29 WAVEFORM COMPARISON: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION ON HANGING-WALL SIDE: R X = 10.5 km, R JB = 6.5 km, R RUP = 9.2 km

30 WAVEFORM COMPARISON: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION ON HANGING-WALL SIDE: R X = 10.5 km, R JB = 6.5 km, R RUP = 9.2 km

31 N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION ON HANGING-WALL SIDE: R X = -2.5 km R JB = 0 km R RUP = 3.5 km

32 N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA: GP, SDSU, & ExSIM STATION ON HANGING-WALL SIDE: R X = -2.5 km R JB = 0 km R RUP = 3.5 km

33 STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -20.0 km, R JB = 20.0 km, R RUP = 20.2 km

34 STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -15.0 km, R JB = 15.0 km, R RUP = 15.2 km

35 STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -10.5 km, R JB = 10.5 km, R RUP = 10.8 km

36 STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -7.5 km, R JB = 7.5 km, R RUP = 7.9 km

37 STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -4.5 km, R JB = 4.5 km, R RUP = 5.1 km

38 STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -2.5 km, R JB = 2.5 km, R RUP = 3.5 km

39 STATION ON FOOTWALL SIDE: R X = -1.0 km, R JB = 1.0 km, R RUP = 2.7 km

40 STATION OVER FAULT PLANE: R X = 1.0 km, R JB = 0.0 km, R RUP = 2.7 km

41 STATION OVER FAULT PLANE: R X = 2.5 km, R JB = 0.0 km, R RUP = 3.5 km

42 STATION ON HANGING-WALL SIDE: R X = 4.5 km, R JB = 0.5 km, R RUP = 4.9 km

43 STATION ON HANGING-WALL SIDE: R X = 7.5 km, R JB = 3.5 km, R RUP = 7.1 km

44 STATION ON HANGING-WALL SIDE: R X = 10.5 km, R JB = 6.5 km, R RUP = 9.2 km

45 STATION ON HANGING-WALL SIDE: R X = 15.0 km, R JB = 11.0 km, R RUP = 12.8 km

46 STATION ON HANGING-WALL SIDE: R X = 20.0 km, R JB = 16.0 km, R RUP = 17.3 km

47 CONCLUSIONS Expanding the platform to handle multi- segments faults is very important if we want to use the BBP for forward modeling. 3D Green’s function capabilities important for site specific analysis More work needs to be done to understand the differences between the models.

Download ppt "The SCEC Broadband Platform: From a Research Platform to an Industry Tool 2013 SCEC Annual Meeting Katie Wooddell."

Similar presentations

Fast determination of earthquake source parameters from strong motion records: Mw, focal mechanism, slip distribution B. Delouis, J. Charlety, and M. Vallée.

Fast determination of earthquake source parameters from strong motion records: Mw, focal mechanism, slip distribution B. Delouis, J. Charlety, and M. Vallée.
A Pseudo-Dynamic Rupture Model Generator for Earthquakes on Geometrically Complex Faults Daniel Trugman, July 2013.

A Pseudo-Dynamic Rupture Model Generator for Earthquakes on Geometrically Complex Faults Daniel Trugman, July 2013.
Kikuchi method is applied for teleseismic body-waveform modeling.

Kikuchi method is applied for teleseismic body-waveform modeling.
Hydrological information systems Svein Taksdal Head of section, Section for Hydroinformatics Hydrology department Norwegian Water Resources and Energy.

Hydrological information systems Svein Taksdal Head of section, Section for Hydroinformatics Hydrology department Norwegian Water Resources and Energy.
Www.spice-rtn.org Mid-Term Review Meeting, February 13-14, Tutzing Seismic wave Propagation and Imaging in Complex media: a European network IVO OPRSAL.

Mid-Term Review Meeting, February 13-14, Tutzing Seismic wave Propagation and Imaging in Complex media: a European network IVO OPRSAL.
Forces In The Earths Crust Crust: the thin outermost layer of the earth. Continental crust is relatively thick and mostly very old. Oceanic crust is relatively.

Forces In The Earths Crust Crust: the thin outermost layer of the earth. Continental crust is relatively thick and mostly very old. Oceanic crust is relatively.
Structural Geology: Deformation and Mountain Building

Structural Geology: Deformation and Mountain Building
Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.

Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.
Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis Earliest approach taken to seismic hazard analysis Originated in nuclear power industry applications Still used for.

Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis Earliest approach taken to seismic hazard analysis Originated in nuclear power industry applications Still used for.
A nearfield Tsunami warning system in Taiwan by unit tsunami method Po-Fei Chen 1, Yun-Ru Chen 2, Bor-Yaw Lin 1,3, Wu-Ting Tsai 2 1. Institute of Geophysics,

A nearfield Tsunami warning system in Taiwan by unit tsunami method Po-Fei Chen 1, Yun-Ru Chen 2, Bor-Yaw Lin 1,3, Wu-Ting Tsai 2 1. Institute of Geophysics,
103/25/04 NGA Workshop Parameterization of Basin Response Based on 3D Simulations by PEER/SCEC 3D Ground Motion Project Team PI: Steven M. Day San Diego.

103/25/04 NGA Workshop Parameterization of Basin Response Based on 3D Simulations by PEER/SCEC 3D Ground Motion Project Team PI: Steven M. Day San Diego.
Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.

Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.
11/02/2007PEER-SCEC Simulation Workshop1 NUMERICAL GROUND MOTION SIMULATIONS: ASSUMPTIONS, VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION Earthquake Source Velocity Structure.

11/02/2007PEER-SCEC Simulation Workshop1 NUMERICAL GROUND MOTION SIMULATIONS: ASSUMPTIONS, VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION Earthquake Source Velocity Structure.
Application to Wells Nevada Earthquake

Application to Wells Nevada Earthquake
L Braile, 1/26/2006 (revised, Sept., 2009) What is Moment Magnitude?

L Braile, 1/26/2006 (revised, Sept., 2009) What is Moment Magnitude?
Overview of Broadband Platform Software as used in SWUS Project Philip Maechling BBP Modelers Meeting 12 June 2013.

Overview of Broadband Platform Software as used in SWUS Project Philip Maechling BBP Modelers Meeting 12 June 2013.
Discrete Event Simulation in Automotive Final Process System Vishvas Patel John Ma Throughput Analysis & Simulations General Motors 1999 Centerpoint Parkway.

Discrete Event Simulation in Automotive Final Process System Vishvas Patel John Ma Throughput Analysis & Simulations General Motors 1999 Centerpoint Parkway.
Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions Presented by: Emel Seyhan, PhD Student University of California, Los Angeles Collaborators: Lisa M.

Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions Presented by: Emel Seyhan, PhD Student University of California, Los Angeles Collaborators: Lisa M.
1 The SCEC Broadband Ground Motion Simulation Platform Paul Somerville, Scott Callaghan, Philip Maechling, Robert Graves, Nancy Collins, Kim Olsen, Walter.

1 The SCEC Broadband Ground Motion Simulation Platform Paul Somerville, Scott Callaghan, Philip Maechling, Robert Graves, Nancy Collins, Kim Olsen, Walter.
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A REGIONAL EEW SYSTEM FOR THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN REGION ZUCCOLO Elisa, SALAZAR Walter, DI SARNO Luigi, FARRELL Anthony, GIBBS Tony,

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A REGIONAL EEW SYSTEM FOR THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN REGION ZUCCOLO Elisa, SALAZAR Walter, DI SARNO Luigi, FARRELL Anthony, GIBBS Tony,

Similar presentations

Ads by Google