1. CyberShake Study 2.2:
Science Review
Scott Callaghan 1

2. Study Goal CyberShake v1.1 map
Graves & Pitarka (2010) rupture variations
Produce comparable map to CyberShake v1.0
269 sites in Southern California
47 completed, 221 remaining, 1 lost (Pioneer Town)
Does not require calculation of new SGTs
Inexpensive
Provides new data
Analysis of rupture variation effects
Averaging-based factorization

3. Study Goal Map

4. Inputs UCERF 2 CVM-S 2010 rupture variations
0.5 Hz deterministic (no stochastic)
Reuse RWG SGTs (v1.14)
268 sites (47 complete)
Sites of interest (45, 40 complete)
Additional basin sites (25, 1 complete)
Gridded sites (190, 6 complete)
Precarious rock (8, 0 complete)

5. Outputs 268 sites Already have results for 47 sites
3, 5, 10 sec PSA hazard curves
116M 2-component seismograms
2.5 TB
116M PSA files
0.04 TB
Already have results for 47 sites
141 hazard curves
40M files
450 GB
Propose saving results for 3 years

6. V&V Work Hazard curves on Kraken and Ranger agree
Curves with optimized post-processing agree with un-optimized curves
Comparisons with CyberShake v1.0 curves will also provide reassurance

7. Reproducibility of Results
Tagged science code
Captured input versions
Workflow tools change execution model, but not science results
To rerun study in the future (1-2 years)
Archive SGTs when Ranger is decommissioned
Alternatively, regenerate SGTs from v1.14 code base
UCERF 2 ruptures will still be available

8. Expected Analysis Comparison of v1.0 and v1.1 hazard curves
Comparison of v1.0 and v1.1 hazard maps
Averaging-based factorization
Precarious Rocks
Assistance from Rob, Kim, Tom, Feng, Jessica
Computational performance

9. Metrics Number of sites Number of curves
Number of seismograms calculated

10. Open Issues/Risks Analysis
Kraken queue time/downtime
Sufficient SUs
Need 1.2M, ~5M available
Not sure of burn rate of other groups