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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II1 UCERF3.2: Hazard Implications Hazard comparison metrics Inversion testing –Convergence and eqn. set weighting.
Advertisements

10/09/2007CIG/SPICE/IRIS/USAF1 Broadband Ground Motion Simulations for a Mw 7.8 Southern San Andreas Earthquake: ShakeOut Robert W. Graves (URS Corporation)
Faults in Focus: Earthquake Science Accomplishments Thomas H. Jordan Director, Southern California Earthquake Cente r 28 February 2014.
Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.
EPOS use case: High-resolution seismic tomography of Italy
1 High Performance Computing at SCEC Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California.
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.
SCEC: An NSF + USGS Research Center ShakeAlert CISN Testing Center (CTC) Development Philip Maechling Information Technology Architect Southern California.
CyberShake Study 14.2 Technical Readiness Review.
Overview of Broadband Platform Software as used in SWUS Project Philip Maechling BBP Modelers Meeting 12 June 2013.
Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions Presented by: Emel Seyhan, PhD Student University of California, Los Angeles Collaborators: Lisa M.
SCEC Information Technology Overview for 2012 Philip J. Maechling Information Technology Architect Southern California Earthquake Center SCEC Board of.
NSF Geoinformatics Project (Sept 2012 – August 2014) Geoinformatics: Community Computational Platforms for Developing Three-Dimensional Models of Earth.
IMPLEMENTATION OF SCEC RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ONGOING PROJECTS SCEC PROPOSAL TO NSF SCEC 2004 RFP.
SCEC/CME Project - How Earthquake Simulations Drive Middleware Requirements Philip Maechling SCEC IT Architect 24 June 2005.
1 SCEC Broadband Platform Development Using USC HPCC Philip Maechling 12 Nov 2012.
1.UCERF3 development (Field/Milner) 2.Broadband Platform development (Silva/Goulet/Somerville and others) 3.CVM development to support higher frequencies.
CyberShake Study 15.4 Technical Readiness Review.
CyberShake Study 2.3 Technical Readiness Review. Study re-versioning SCEC software uses year.month versioning Suggest renaming this study to 13.4.
The SCEC Broadband Platform Recent Activities and Developments Philip Maechling, Fabio Silva, Scott Callaghan, Thomas H. Jordan Southern California Earthquake.
Fig. 1. A wiring diagram for the SCEC computational pathways of earthquake system science (left) and large-scale calculations exemplifying each of the.
SCEC Workshop on Earthquake Ground Motion Simulation and Validation Development of an Integrated Ground Motion Simulation Validation Program.
Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.
SCEC Community Modeling Environment (SCEC/CME): SCEC TeraShake Platform: Dynamic Rupture and Wave Propagation Simulations Seismological Society of America.
Validation of physics-based ground motion earthquake simulations using a velocity model improved by tomographic inversion results 1 Ricardo Taborda, 1.
Some General Implications of Results Because hazard estimates at a point are often dominated by one or a few faults, an important metric is the participation.
CyberShake Study 15.3 Science Readiness Review. Study 15.3 Scientific Goals Calculate a 1 Hz map of Southern California Produce meaningful 2 second results.
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.
Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake Progress Update 3 November 2014 through 4 May 2015 UGMS May 2015 Meeting Philip Maechling SCEC IT Architect.
Experiences Running Seismic Hazard Workflows Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California SC13 Workflow BoF.
Southern California Earthquake Center SCEC Collaboratory for Interseismic Simulation and Modeling (CISM) Infrastructure Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September.
UCERF3 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) 14 Full-3D tomographic model CVM-S4.26 of S. California 2 CyberShake 14.2 seismic hazard.
Funded by the NSF OCI program grants OCI and OCI Mats Rynge, Gideon Juve, Karan Vahi, Gaurang Mehta, Ewa Deelman Information Sciences Institute,
1 1.Used AWP-ODC-GPU to run 10Hz Wave propagation simulation with rough fault rupture in half-space with and without small scale heterogeneities. 2.Used.
Rapid Centroid Moment Tensor (CMT) Inversion in 3D Earth Structure Model for Earthquakes in Southern California 1 En-Jui Lee, 1 Po Chen, 2 Thomas H. Jordan,
Southern California Earthquake Center SI2-SSI: Community Software for Extreme-Scale Computing in Earthquake System Science (SEISM2) Wrap-up Session Thomas.
CyberShake and NGA MCER Results Scott Callaghan UGMS Meeting November 3, 2014.
Welcome to the CME Project Meeting 2013 Philip J. Maechling Information Technology Architect Southern California Earthquake Center.
1 USC Information Sciences InstituteYolanda Gil AAAI-08 Tutorial July 13, 2008 Part IV Workflow Mapping and Execution in Pegasus (Thanks.
PEER 2003 Meeting 03/08/031 Interdisciplinary Framework Major focus areas Structural Representation Fault Systems Earthquake Source Physics Ground Motions.
INTRODUCTION TO XSEDE. INTRODUCTION  Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE)  “most advanced, powerful, and robust collection.
SCEC CyberShake on TG & OSG: Options and Experiments Allan Espinosa*°, Daniel S. Katz*, Michael Wilde*, Ian Foster*°,
National Center for Supercomputing Applications University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Recent TeraGrid Visualization Support Projects at NCSA Dave.
Overview of Scientific Workflows: Why Use Them?
Special Project Highlights ( )
CyberShake Study 2.3 Readiness Review
CyberShake Study 16.9 Science Readiness Review
High Performance Computing at SCEC
ShakeAlert CISN Testing Center (CTC) Development
SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting
2020 NEHRP Provisions Issues Ground Motion
Seismic Hazard Analysis Using Distributed Workflows
Meeting Objectives Discuss proposed CISM structure and activities
Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center
The SCEC Broadband Platform: Computational Infrastructure For Transparent And Reproducible Ground Motion Simulation Philip J. Maechling [1], Fabio Silva.
CyberShake Study 16.9 Discussion
SCEC Community Modeling Environment (SCEC/CME)
High-F Project Southern California Earthquake Center
Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September 13, 2015
High-Performance Computing (HPC) IS Transforming Seismology
CyberShake Study 17.3 Science Readiness Review
SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting No. 6
CyberShake Study 2.2: Science Review Scott Callaghan 1.
rvGAHP – Push-Based Job Submission Using Reverse SSH Connections
CyberShake Study 14.2 Science Readiness Review
Southern California Earthquake Center
Southern California Earthquake Center
CyberShake Study 18.8 Technical Readiness Review
CyberShake Study 2.2: Computational Review Scott Callaghan 1.
CyberShake Study 18.8 Planning
Presentation transcript:

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

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake Platform: Physics-Based PSHA

Southern California Earthquake Center November 2014 UGMS Meeting Review of CyberShake Study 14.3 Hazard models for 14 Los Angeles Region Sites. Reviewed CyberShake using 3D velocity model CVM-S4.26 Min Vs : 500 m/s Max CyberShake Frequency : 0.5Hz Frequency Range: 3S Period and longer Compared MCER Hazard Curves GMPE vs CyberShake for 14 Sites In Los Angeles Region

Southern California Earthquake Center November 2014 UGMS MCER Sites

Southern California Earthquake Center November 2014 UGMS MCER Sites

Southern California Earthquake Center Overview New Results for May 2015 UGMS Meeting Los Angeles region MCER Contour Maps based on 284 sites of CyberShake Study 14.3 Initiate Processing for CyberShake 15.4 Study using NSF and DOE Computers Los Angeles region Hazard Model based on 336 sites at 1Hz Estimated 40M Computer Hours Estimated 500TB+ temporary data at DOE,NSF Computers Estimated 11TB persistent data at SCEC Current Status: CyberShake 15.4 hazard curves for 14 Sites: Maximum Frequency: 1Hz 3D Velocity Model: CVM-S4.26 Min Vs: 500 m/s Comparison MCER curves between GMPE and CyberShake 15.4

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake Study 15.4 sites (336) 336 sites (10 km mesh + points of interest + “gap” sites) Green sites are the 50 new “gap” sites (Run 14 UGMS sites first )

Southern California Earthquake Center Study 15.3 Scientific Goals Calculate a CyberShake Hazard Model of Southern California using 1 Hz simulated seismograms CyberShake 15.4 Hazard Model Study: Earthquake Rupture Forecast: UCERF2 Rupture Generator: Graves & Pitarka (2014) rupture generator with regular spaced hypocenters 3D Velocity Model: CVM-S4.26 Min Vs: 500 m/s Max Simulated Freq: 1Hz Produce meaningful 2 second ground motion amplitudes RotD50 and RotD100 at 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10 seconds Contour maps

Southern California Earthquake Center New Computational Results This Meeting Results for May 2015 UGMS Meeting CS14.3 maps at ≥ 3 s for the LA region In November 2014, we had RotD100 amplitudes needed for MCER at each site, for only 14 sites. We have now completed RotD100 and MCER calculations for all 286 sites using CyberShake 14.3 seismograms. Added difference maps requested at that meeting CS14.3 hazard curves, RTGM curves, and combined (probabilistic plus deterministic) curves for the 14 sites In November 2014, we had these results for 14 sites. Now, these can be calculated for any of the CS sites. CS15.4 hazard curves, RTGM curves, and combined (probabilistic plus deterministic) curves for the 14 site Preliminary results from CyberShake 15.4 production calculation.

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake 14.3 MCER Contour Maps

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake 15.4 RotD100 at 2S period (LADT)

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake 15.4 Deterministic RotD100 (COO)

Southern California Earthquake Center Study 15.4 Parameters 1.0 Hz deterministic –100 m spacing –dt=0.005 sec –nt=40000 timesteps CVM-S 4.26 –Vs min = 500 m/s UCERF 2 Graves & Pitarka (2014) rupture variations –200 m rupture grid point spacing Source filtered at 2.0 Hz

Southern California Earthquake Center Expected Study 15.4 Data Products CVM-S4.26 Los Angeles-area hazard maps RotD100 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10 sec RotD50 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10 sec Geometric mean 2, 3, 5, 10 sec Hazard curves for 286 sites, at 2s, 3s, 5s, 10s 336 sets of 2-component SGTs Seismograms for all ruptures (~160M) Peak amplitudes in DB for 2s, 3s, 5s, 10s RotD100, RotD50 and geometric mean SA

Southern California Earthquake Center Estimated Duration Limiting factors: –XK node queue time 800 XK nodes is 19% of Blue Waters –Titan -> Blue Waters If throughput is very high, transfer could be bottleneck –USC HPC downtime for ~1 week in April Estimated completion is 12 weeks (11 running + 1 downtime) –Based on same node availability as Study 14.2 Planning to request reservation on Blue Waters Planning to request high priority on Titan

Southern California Earthquake Center End

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake 15.4 RotD100 at 3S period (LADT)

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake 15.4 RotD100 at 2S period (LADT)

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake 15.4 PSA3.0 Hazard Curve (LADT)

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake 14.3 PSA3.0 Hazard Curve (LADT)

Southern California Earthquake Center Rupture Generator We determined that the change in hazard curves was due to hypocenter undersampling M6.55, Puente Hills

Southern California Earthquake Center Rupture Generator changes Previous number of realizations related to fault length # of realizations = max(10, C * Area/10.0) –C = 0.5 Each realization is unique slip + hypocenter location Supports either random or uniform hypocenter distribution

Southern California Earthquake Center Rupture Generator v3.3.1 Use of new G&P rupture generator (v3.3.1) brought 1000m and 200m curves into agreement TEST site, black = 200 m, magenta = 1000 m 0.5Hz UCERF2 3 sec SA CVM-S4

Southern California Earthquake Center Random vs Uniform Hypocenters Variation counts –G&P 2010: 423k –Uniform: 485k –Random: 542k Uniform easier to interpolate 0.5Hz UCERF2 3 sec SA CVM- S4.26 WNGC site: black=random, magenta=uniform

Southern California Earthquake Center Storage Requirements Titan –Purged: 526 TB (for SGTs and temp data) Blue Waters –Delayed purge: 506 TB (for Titan SGTs) –Purged: 526 TB SGTs + 9 TB data products SCEC –Archived: 9.1 TB (seismograms, PSA, RotD) –Database: 268 GB 4 periods, 6) –Temporary: 608 GB (workflow logs) –Shared SCEC disks have 171 TB free

Southern California Earthquake Center Computational Requirements Per site: ~3720 node-hrs –SGTs: depends on execution site (~50%) Titan = 2110 node-hrs / 63,300 SUs Blue Waters = 1760 node-hrs / 30,200 SUs More expensive for Titan because of padding in pilot jobs and different node-hrs -> SU conversion –PP: 1880 node-hrs / 60,200 SUs (~50%) Computational time: –Titan (SGTs): 355K node-hours / 10.7M SUs –Blue Waters: 928K node-hours SGTs: 275K GPU node-hrs, 21K CPU node-hrs PP: 632K CPU node-hrs Titan has 104M SUs remaining Blue Waters has 5.3M node-hrs remaining

Southern California Earthquake Center End