CyberShake and NGA MCER Results Scott Callaghan UGMS Meeting November 3, 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
consulting engineers and scientists
Advertisements

EPRI/SOG Mmax –Six earth-science teams, diverse methods largest observed eq (+ increment) catalog statistics – extreme occurrences seismogenic feature:
Ground Motions Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Steve Kramer
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)
TBI Committee Members Y. Bozorgnia C.B. Crouse J.P. Stewart
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.
Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis Earliest approach taken to seismic hazard analysis Originated in nuclear power industry applications Still used for.
1 High Performance Computing at SCEC Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California.
GMSM Methodology and Terminology Christine Goulet, UCLA GMSM Core Members.
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.
Further Development of Site Response in NGA Models PEER Lifelines Program NGA-West2 Project Topic #8 Working Group Meeting Meeting #2October 26, 2010.
March 7, 2008NGA-East 2nd Workshop1 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN STRONG MOTION SIMULATIONS FOR CEUS Paul Somerville and Robert Graves URS Pasadena MOTIVATION:
Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.
Overview of GMSM Methods Nicolas Luco 1 st Workshop on Ground Motion Selection and Modification (GMSM) for Nonlinear Analysis – 27 October 2006.
Ground Motion Parameters Measured by triaxial accelerographs 2 orthogonal horizontal components 1 vertical component Digitized to time step of
CyberShake Study 14.2 Technical Readiness Review.
Paleoseismic and Geologic Data for Earthquake Simulations Lisa B. Grant and Miryha M. Gould.
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.
Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes and Critical Infrastructure Workshop Edward Perez, FERC Background - Part 12D Report. - Every 5 years. - Top-to-bottom.
Description of selected broadband ground motion simulation methods Paul Somerville, URS Yuehua Zeng, USGS Golden.
Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Earthquake Hazard Session 1 Mr. James Daniell Risk Analysis
NSF Geoinformatics Project (Sept 2012 – August 2014) Geoinformatics: Community Computational Platforms for Developing Three-Dimensional Models of Earth.
1.UCERF3 development (Field/Milner) 2.Broadband Platform development (Silva/Goulet/Somerville and others) 3.CVM development to support higher frequencies.
FEMA/ EARTH SCIENCE ASPECTS OF HAZUS Ivan Wong Seismic Hazards Group URS Corporation Oakland, CA.
CENA GMPEs from Stochastic Method Simulations: Review, Issues, Recent Work David M. Boore Blue Castle Licensing Project (BCLP) Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis.
CyberShake Study 15.4 Technical Readiness Review.
Next Generation Attenuation Models for Central & Eastern US (NGA-East) Stakeholder Workshop: Introduction March 7, 2008 Yousef Bozorgnia, Ph.D., P.E. PEER.
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.
Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.
Doc.: IEEE /0553r1 Submission May 2009 Alexander Maltsev, Intel Corp.Slide 1 Path Loss Model Development for TGad Channel Models Date:
Epistemic Uncertainty on the Median Ground Motion of Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA) Models Brian Chiou and Robert Youngs The Next Generation of Research.
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.
Process for 2007 Maps CA Oct 2006 PacNW Mar 2006 InterMtn West June 2006 CEUS May 2006 National User-Needs Workshop DEC 2006 CA Draft maps (Project 07)
UCERF3 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) 14 Full-3D tomographic model CVM-S4.26 of S. California 2 CyberShake 14.2 seismic hazard.
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,
Fault Segmentation: User Perspective Norm Abrahamson PG&E March 16, 2006.
Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake Progress Update November 3, 2014 – 4 May 2015 UGMS May 2015 Meeting Philip Maechling SCEC IT Architect.
Forecasting Earthquake Ground Motions Using Large-Scale Numerical Simulations Philip J. Maechling Information Technology Architect Southern California.
National Center for Supercomputing Applications University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Recent TeraGrid Visualization Support Projects at NCSA Dave.
CyberShake Study 16.9 Science Readiness Review
Yelena Kropivnitskaya, Kristy F. Tiampo,
Color Variation: o Fixed Probability of Exceedance & Duration:
SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting
2020 NEHRP Provisions Issues Ground Motion
Seismic Hazard Analysis Using Distributed Workflows
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.
CE 5603 Seismic Hazard Assessment
CyberShake Study 16.9 Discussion
Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September 13, 2015
CyberShake Study 17.3 Science Readiness Review
SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting No. 6
CyberShake Study 2.2: Science Review Scott Callaghan 1.
Color Variation: o Fixed Probability of Exceedance & Duration:
March 21-22, University of Washington, Seattle
Color Variation: o Fixed Probability of Exceedance & Duration:
CyberShake Study 14.2 Science Readiness Review
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Southern California Earthquake Center
CyberShake Study 18.8 Technical Readiness Review
Presentation transcript:

CyberShake and NGA MCER Results Scott Callaghan UGMS Meeting November 3, 2014

Site Selection 14 CyberShake sites identified as close matches to urban centers

CyberShake Model Selection CyberShake hazard curves have been calculated with varying parameters  Velocity model  Rupture realization generator  Strain Green Tensor code Selected recent CyberShake model (simulations performed in 3/14)  Graves & Pitarka (2010) rupture realizations  CVM-S 4.26 velocity model  AWP-ODC Strain Green Tensor code

Probabilistic MCER Construct a PSHA hazard curve using RotD100 Convolve with fragility function Obtain period-dependent MCER value Same procedure for CyberShake and NGAs + 3 sec SA, g

How RotD100 was obtained CyberShake  Reprocessed seismograms to obtain RotD100  Used modified, verified RotD code from BBP 2008 NGAs  Originally calculated using GMRotI50  Scaling factors taken from Boore NGAs  Originally calculated using RotD50  Scaling factors taken from Shahi & Baker 2014

Deterministic MCER (NGAs) For each UCERF 2 source within 200 km of the site:  For every rupture, get the log(mean) and standard deviation from the GMPE  Extract the 84 th percentile for this rupture from a log-normal distribution Select the largest value

Deterministic MCER (CyberShake) For each UCERF 2 source within 200 km of the site:  Determine the maximum magnitude for any rupture of this source, M max  Select the ruptures with M ≥ M max – 0.1  Get the peak SA value (RotD100) for all rupture variations for all selected ruptures  Determine the 84 th percentile peak SA value from that set of values Select the largest 84 th percentile peak SA value as the period-dependent deterministic MCER

Probabilistic Plots CyberShake 2008 NGAs  Campbell and Bozorgnia  Boore and Atkinson  Chiou and Youngs  Abrahamson and Silva 2014 NGAs  Campbell and Bozorgnia  Chiou and Youngs  Idriss  Boore, Stewart, Seyhan, and Atkinson  Abrahamson, Silva & Kamai

Deterministic Plots CyberShake + same set of 9 NGAs

Combined Plots Probabilistic CyberShake Deterministic CyberShake Average of probabilistic 2014 NGAs  Curves averaged, then convolution applied Average of deterministic 2014 NGAs  Average of MCER values Also plotted ASCE 7-10 Det Lower Limit

Overall MCER site plots For each period  Take the higher of the deterministic curve and the deterministic lower limit curve to get the deterministic MCER  Take the lower of the probabilistic MCER and the deterministic MCER to get the overall MCER Follow this process for both CyberShake and average of 2014 NGAs Also plotted ASCE 7-10 Ch 11.4 and the deterministic lower limit

Decomposition Curves Decomposition performed at 3 sec Combined sources from same fault (for example, different segments along the San Andreas)

Background Seismicity Not included in CyberShake Plotted NGA fault and off-fault contributions