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

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

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.

Hydrological information systems Svein Taksdal Head of section, Section for Hydroinformatics Hydrology department Norwegian Water Resources and Energy.

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.

Structural Geology: Deformation and Mountain Building

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.

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.

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.

Application to Wells Nevada Earthquake

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.

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.

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,

Predicting Electromagnetic Fields with GEMACS and the CEM Framework Edgar L. Coffey Applied Research Associates, Inc.

© Geometric Limited | All logos used are the proprietary trademarks of the respective owner organisations Better Design for Improved.

Broadband Ground Motion Simulation Plans Paul Somerville URS SCEC Ground Motion Simulation Validation Progress Workshop Sept 9, 2012.

1 SCEC Broadband Platform Development Using USC HPCC Philip Maechling 12 Nov 2012.

SCEC – PG&E-SCE 2013 Research Coordination Meeting Norm Abrahamson Sep 14, 2012.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE FAULT PLANE AND A SIMPLE 3D VISUALIZATION TOOL Petra Adamová, Jiří Zahradník Charles University in Prague

Quick fault-plane identification by a geometrical method: The M w 6.2 Leonidio earthquake, 6 January 2008, Greece and some other recent applications J.

The SCEC Broadband Platform Recent Activities and Developments Philip Maechling, Fabio Silva, Scott Callaghan, Thomas H. Jordan Southern California Earthquake.

SCEC Workshop on Earthquake Ground Motion Simulation and Validation Development of an Integrated Ground Motion Simulation Validation Program.

1 USC INFORMATION SCIENCES INSTITUTE CAT: Composition Analysis Tool Interactive Composition of Computational Pathways Yolanda Gil Jihie Kim Varun Ratnakar.

LECTURE 6: SEISMIC MOMENT TENSORS

Large Earthquake Rapid Finite Rupture Model Products Thorne Lay (UCSC) USGS/IRIS/NSF International Workshop on the Utilization of Seismographic Networks.

Generating Green’s Functions with Pylith Mw 6 Queshm Island, Iran, EQ.

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey The Earthquake is Inevitable: The Disaster is Not.

Ground motion simulations in the Pollino region (Southern Italy) for Mw 6.4 scenario events.

1 Cythera M6.7 earthquake (January 8, 2006) in southern Aegean: uneasy retrieval of the upward rupture propagation J. Zahradnik, J. Jansky, V. Plicka,

Southern California Earthquake Center SCEC Technical Activity Groups (TAGs) Self-organized to develop and test critical methodologies for solving specific.

LEQ: What are the categories and types of faults, and what type of stress produce each? Key Terms: displacement, strike slip fault, dip slip fault,

Phase 1: Comparison of Results at 4Hz Phase 1 Goal: Compare 4Hz ground motion results from different codes to establish whether the codes produce equivalent.

GROUND MOTION SIMULATIONS AT RAPID RESPONSE SITES IN ISTANBUL, TURKEY Mathilde Bøttger Sørensen 1, Nelson Pulido 2, Anibal Ojeda 3, Kuvvet Atakan 1, Mustafa.

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake Progress Update 3 November 2014 through 4 May 2015 UGMS May 2015 Meeting Philip Maechling SCEC IT Architect.

UCERF3 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) 14 Full-3D tomographic model CVM-S4.26 of S. California 2 CyberShake 14.2 seismic hazard.

Overview of Broadband Platform Software as used in SWUS Project.

California Earthquake Rupture Model Satisfying Accepted Scaling Laws (SCEC 2010, 1-129) David Jackson, Yan Kagan and Qi Wang Department of Earth and Space.

Earthquake source modelling by second degree moment tensors Petra Adamová Jan Šílený Geophysical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.

FAULTS AND FAULTING Lemuel Jhon S. Libres Janice Putian Sta. Fe Lopez.

AIRS/AMSU-A/HSB Data Subsetting and Visualization Services at GES DAAC Sunmi Cho, Jason Li, Donglian Sun, Jianchun Qin and Carrie Phelps, Code 902, NASA.

Fault Segmentation: User Perspective Norm Abrahamson PG&E March 16, 2006.

Michele Cooke Betsy Madden Jess McBeck Growth by Optimization of Work A Boundary Element Method tool for exploring fault evolution using the principle.

The SCEC Broadband Platform Overview and Recent Developments Philip Maechling Information Technology Architect Southern California Earthquake Center May.

LEQ: What are the categories and types of faults, and what type of stress produce each? Key Terms: displacement, strike slip fault, dip slip fault,

Fault Types ~Notes~.

Shoreline and Hosgri Faults, Central Coast

Finite-Source Models of the December 22, 2003 Mw6

Kinematic Modeling of the Denali Earthquake

NGA-East Tentative Plan

The SCEC Broadband Platform: Computational Infrastructure For Transparent And Reproducible Ground Motion Simulation Philip J. Maechling [1], Fabio Silva.

I. Basic Techniques in Structural Geology

Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September 13, 2015

Url Login here.

LA Basin Story Tectonics Geology Faults Velocity Structure Seismicity

Principal Stress rotates to EW direction

Douglas Dreger, Gabriel Hurtado, and Anil Chopra

Douglas Dreger, Gabriel Hurtado, and Anil Chopra

High-Performance Computing (HPC) IS Transforming Seismology

Scenario Modeling in GoldSim

SICHUAN EARTHQUAKE May 12, 2008

UNIT 4 The theory of plate tectonics explains Earth’s geological processes

Kinds of Faults.

Presentation transcript:

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

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

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

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

Hypo AS = Flength/2 + Hypo AS = Hypo DD = 9.87 (36.37, ) STRIKE = Hypo Along Strike - Hypo Along Strike Hypo AS = Hypo DD = 9.87

FIGURES

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

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)

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”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

RANDOM HYPOCENTER 32 REALIZATIONS ZTOR = 2.5 km REVERSE SLIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.