3D Rupture Dynamics Code Validation Workshop Ruth Harris and Ralph Archuleta Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

The SCEC Community Stress Model (CSM) Project Jeanne Hardebeck USGS, Menlo Park, CA.

Advertisements

16/9/2011UCERF3 / EQ Simulators Workshop RSQSim Jim Dieterich Keith Richards-Dinger UC Riverside Funding: USGS NEHRP SCEC.

16/9/2011UCERF3 / EQ Simulators Workshop Terry Tullis Steve Ward John RundleJim Dieterich Keith Richards-Dinger Fred Pollitz Generic Description of Earthquake.

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)

Meshless Elasticity Model and Contact Mechanics-based Verification Technique Rifat Aras 1 Yuzhong Shen 1 Michel Audette 1 Stephane Bordas 2 1 Department.

Chapter 17 Design Analysis using Inventor Stress Analysis Module

A DECADE OF PROGRESS : FROM EARTHQUAKE KINEMATICS TO DYNAMICS Raúl Madariaga Laboratoire de Géologie, Ecole Normale Supérieure.

H.-M. Huang S.-D. Liu National Steel Corporation, Market St., Livonia, MI S. Jiang DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 800 Chrysler Dr., Auburn Hills,

Geol 600 Notable Historical Earthquakes Finite fault rupture propagation rohan.sdsu.edu/~kbolsen/geol600_nhe_source_inversion.ppt.

March 7, 2008NGA-East 2nd Workshop1 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN STRONG MOTION SIMULATIONS FOR CEUS Paul Somerville and Robert Graves URS Pasadena MOTIVATION:

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

Segments of the San Andreas Fault Historically, the San Andreas has been divided up into individual fault segments that range from tens to hundreds of.

Evidence on non-self-similarity source scaling in cluster earthquakes Yen-Yu Lin 1, Kuo -Fong Ma 1, Hiroo Kanamori 2, Teh-Ru Song 3, Nadia Lapusta 2, Victor.

Overview of Broadband Platform Software as used in SWUS Project Philip Maechling BBP Modelers Meeting 12 June 2013.

1 The SCEC Broadband Ground Motion Simulation Platform Paul Somerville, Scott Callaghan, Philip Maechling, Robert Graves, Nancy Collins, Kim Olsen, Walter.

Description of selected broadband ground motion simulation methods Paul Somerville, URS Yuehua Zeng, USGS Golden.

Engineering 1182 College of Engineering Engineering Education Innovation Center Solid Modeling Introduction Rev: , AJPSolid Modeling Introduction1.

Large-scale 3-D Simulations of Spontaneous Rupture and Wave Propagation in Complex, Nonlinear Media Roten, D. 1, Olsen, K.B. 2, Day, S.M. 2, Dalguer, L.A.

Exploring Planet Earth Blind Thrust Fault Earthquake Rupture Animation (Northridge, 1994) Brad Aagaard, USGS

ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario Ground Motions Kenneth W. Hudnut U. S. Geological Survey Earthquake Research Affiliates Pasadena, California 9 May 2008 U.S.

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

1.UCERF3 development (Field/Milner) 2.Broadband Platform development (Silva/Goulet/Somerville and others) 3.CVM development to support higher frequencies.

Interseismic deformation with aseismic stress-dependent fault slip Eric A Hetland, Mark Simons, Ravi Kanda, Sue Owen TO brown-bag – 03 April 2007 a very.

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

AMIT CHOURASIA VISUALIZATION SCIENTIST VISUALIZATION SERVICES SAN DIEGO SUPERCOMPUTER CENTER PRESENTED AT : GEOINFORMATICS 2007, MAY 18 TH VISUAL REPRESENTATION.

Computational Seismology at LLNL: A National Lab Perspective Arthur Rodgers Atmospheric, Earth and Environmental Sciences Department Lawrence Livermore.

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.

March 2006 WGCEP Workshop Ruth A. Harris U.S. Geological Survey.

On Parallel Time Domain Finite Difference Computation of the Elastic Wave Equation and Perfectly Matched Layers (PML) Absorbing Boundary Conditions (With.

© Copyright IBM Corporation 2012 Briefing Agenda – Luxinnovation & ILEA Luxembourg 10 th January 2012 Philippe Guillaume & Peter S. Robison IBM Automotive.

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

Stress- and State-Dependence of Earthquake Occurrence Jim Dieterich, UC Riverside.

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

Nonlinear Performance and Potential Damage of Degraded Structures Under Different Earthquakes The 5 th Tongji-UBC Symposium on Earthquake Engineering “Facing.

16/9/2011UCERF3 / EQ Simulators Workshop ALLCAL Steven N. Ward University of California Santa Cruz.

The influence of the geometry of the San Andreas fault system on earthquakes in California Qingsong Li and Mian Liu Geological Sciences, 101 Geol. Bldg.,

Amit Chourasia Visualization Scientist San Diego Supercomputer Center Presented at : Scientific Computing Institute, Univ. of Utah. Jun 20, 2007 Scientific.

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

06/22/041 Data-Gathering Systems IRIS Stanford/ USGS UNAVCO JPL/UCSD Data Management Organizations PI’s, Groups, Centers, etc. Publications, Presentations,

Mid-Term Review Meeting, February 13-14, Tutzing Seismic wave Propagation and Imaging in Complex media: a European network JEAN-PAUL.

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.

Performance Evaluation of Adaptive Ramp Metering Algorithms in PARAMICS Simulation Lianyu Chu, Henry X. Liu, Will Recker California PATH, UC Irvine H.

112/16/2010AGU Annual Fall Meeting - NG44a-08 Terry Tullis Michael Barall Steve Ward John Rundle Don Turcotte Louise Kellogg Burak Yikilmaz Eric Heien.

Unified Structural Representation (USR) The primary mission of the USR Focus Area has been the development of a unified, object-oriented 3-D representation.

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

The rupture process of great subduction earthquakes: the concept of the barrier and asperity models Yoshihiro Kaneko (Presentation based on Aki, 1984;

Dynamic Issues in Fault- to-Fault Jumping David Oglesby UC Riverside UCERF3 Workshop June 11, 2011.

Visualizing large scale earthquake simulations Amit Chourasia Visualization Scientist San Diego Supercomputer Center Presented to: Advanced User Support,

© 2011 Autodesk Freely licensed for use by educational institutions. Reuse and changes require a note indicating that content has been modified from the.

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

Visualization in Scientific Computing (or Scientific Visualization) Multiresolution,...

Role of Grain Shape and Inter-Particle Friction on the Strength of Simulated Fault Gouge – Results, Questions, Directions D. Place, P. Mora, and S. Abe.

Thursday May 9 8:30 am-noon Working Group 4 Convenors: Olsen, Igel, Furumura Macro-scale Simulation Dynamic Rupture and Wave Propagation Innovations in.

GeoFEM Kinematic Earthquake Cycle Modeling in the Japanese Islands Hirahara, K. (1), H. Suito (1), M. Hyodo (1) M. Iizuka (2) and H. Okuda (3) (1) Nagoya.

SPICE Research and Training Workshop III, July 22-28, Kinsale, Ireland DEM Simulation of dynamic Slip on a rough Fault Steffen Abe, Ivan.

WP7: Seismic Source Activities Leaders: S. Das (UOXF) L. Dalguer (ETH-Zurich) Coordinator: L. Dalguer (ETH-Zurich) September 19-26, st QUEST Workshop,

Single CPU Optimizations of SCEC AWP-Olsen Application Hieu Nguyen (UCSD), Yifeng Cui (SDSC), Kim Olsen (SDSU), Kwangyoon Lee (SDSC) Introduction Loop.

On constraining dynamic parameters from finite-source rupture models of past earthquakes Mathieu Causse (ISTerre) Luis Dalguer (ETHZ) and Martin Mai (KAUST)

Future Directions and Capabilities of Simulators Jim Dieterich

NGA-East Tentative Plan

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.

High-F Project Southern California Earthquake Center

Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September 13, 2015

Southern California Earthquake Center

Douglas Dreger, Gabriel Hurtado, and Anil Chopra

Physics-based simulation for visual computing applications

SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting No. 6

Presentation transcript:

3D Rupture Dynamics Code Validation Workshop Ruth Harris and Ralph Archuleta Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

8:30-8:55 Workshop Introduction (Ruth Harris/Ralph Archuleta) 9:00-9:20Comparison of Two Spontaneous Rupture Methods (Steve Day /Luis Dalguer /Nadia Lapusta /Yi Liu) 9:25-9:45EQdyna: An explicit dynamic finite element code for modeling spontaneous rupture on a geometrically complex fault (Benchun Duan) 9:50-10:10 Break 10:10-11:30The Problem Versions 4+5 Comparisons/Discussion (Ruth/Ralph/All) 11:30-12:30Lunch 12:30-12:50A New SCEC IT Visualization Tool (Kim Olsen) 12:55-1:15The Reference Earthquakes Digital Library Rupture Model Format (Brad Aagaard) 1:20-2:00General Discussion and Future Plans (All)

Overall Goal: Compare the 3D methods currently being used by SCEC scientists to simulate (spontaneous) rupture dynamics Some Specific Objectives: *Understand if our methods are producing the same results when using the same assumptions about friction, crustal structure, fault geometry, etc. *Learn which methods are best suited for which type of problem, for example, dipping faults, complex friction formulations, heterogeneous materials. *Learn which methods might be best suited for coupling to simulations of longer times and larger regions. Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

This Workshop:  Learn about an in-depth code comparison  Learn about a new finite element code  Compare results of The Problem, Versions 4 and 5  Learn about new IT ways to view our comparisons  Learn how our formats relate to the Ref. EQ database  Plan our next steps Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

The Problem, Version 4 (July-September 2005) Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop Higher Stress and Lower Stress Patches on a Vertical Fault in a Fullspace

The Problem, Version 5 (July-September 2005) Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop Higher Stress and Lower Stress Patches on a Vertical Fault in a Halfspace

Rupture Dynamics Code Validation Source Physics for The Problem, Version 4 Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

Rupture Dynamics Code Validation Source Physics for The Problem, Version 5 Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

Rupture Dynamics Code Validation Station Locations for The Problem, Version 4 Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

Rupture Dynamics Code Validation Station Locations for The Problem, Version 5 Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

Rupture Modelers and Codes

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop * Steve Day, Luis Dalguer, Nadia Lapusta, Yi Liu

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop * Benchun Duan

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop Morning Break

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop 8:30-8:55 Workshop Introduction (Ruth Harris/Ralph Archuleta) 9:00-9:20Comparison of Two Spontaneous Rupture Methods (Steve Day /Luis Dalguer /Nadia Lapusta /Yi Liu) 9:25-9:45EQdyna: An explicit dynamic finite element code for modeling spontaneous rupture on a geometrically complex fault (Benchun Duan) 9:50-10:10 Break 10:10-11:30The Problem Versions 4+5 Comparisons/Discussion (Ruth/Ralph/All) 11:30-12:30Lunch 12:30-12:50A New SCEC IT Visualization Tool (Kim Olsen) 12:55-1:15The Reference Earthquakes Digital Library Rupture Model Format (Brad Aagaard) 1:20-2:00General Discussion and Future Plans (All)

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

Rupture Modelers and Codes

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

300 m vs. 300 m node spacing/element size

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

100 m (150m) vs. 100 m node spacing/element size

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

300 m vs. 300 m node spacing/element size

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

100 m (150m) vs. 100 m node spacing/element size

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

300 m vs. 300 m node spacing/element size

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

100 m (150m) vs. 100 m node spacing/element size

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

300 m vs. 300 m node spacing/element size

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

100 m (150m) vs. 100 m node spacing/element size

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop

Lunch

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop 8:30-8:55 Workshop Introduction (Ruth Harris/Ralph Archuleta) 9:00-9:20Comparison of Two Spontaneous Rupture Methods (Steve Day /Luis Dalguer /Nadia Lapusta /Yi Liu) 9:25-9:45EQdyna: An explicit dynamic finite element code for modeling spontaneous rupture on a geometrically complex fault (Benchun Duan) 9:50-10:10 Break 10:10-11:30The Problem Versions 4+5 Comparisons/Discussion (Ruth/Ralph/All) 11:30-12:30Lunch 12:30-12:50A New SCEC IT Visualization Tool (Kim Olsen) 12:55-1:15The Reference Earthquakes Digital Library Rupture Model Format (Brad Aagaard) 1:20-2:00General Discussion and Future Plans (All)

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop * Kim Olsen

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop * Brad Aagaard

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop Future Plans (Group Discussion)

Sept. 11, 2005 SCEC Workshop The End