1 / 21

CyberShake Study 14.2 Science Readiness Review

CyberShake Study 14.2 Science Readiness Review. Compare impact of velocity models on Los Angeles-area hazard maps with various velocity models CVM-S4.26, BBP 1D, CVM-H 11.9, no GTL Compare to CVM-S, CVM-H 11.9 with GTL Investigate impact of GTL Compare 1D reference model

ayanna-mcmahon
Download Presentation

CyberShake Study 14.2 Science Readiness Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CyberShake Study 14.2 Science Readiness Review

  2. Compare impact of velocity models on Los Angeles-area hazard maps with various velocity models CVM-S4.26, BBP 1D, CVM-H 11.9, no GTL Compare to CVM-S, CVM-H 11.9 with GTL Investigate impact of GTL Compare 1D reference model Compare tomographic inversion results 286 sites (10 km mesh + points of interest) Study 14.2 Scientific Goals

  3. CVM-S4.26 Model • Starting point was Po’s perturbations • On 500 m grid • Minimum Vs = 1000 m/s • CVM-S4.26 integrates perturbations with CVM-S4, allowing for querying in arbitrary resolution. • Preserves CVM-S GTL while lowering velocities in rock sites. • If “inside the basin” (Vs<1000 m/s), preserve CVM-S4 material properties • If “outside the basin”, (Vs>1000 m/s), trilinearly interpolate Po’s perturbations with CVM-S4.

  4. CVM-S4.26 vs. CVM-S4

  5. CVM-H 11.9, no GTL Model

  6. BBP 1D Model

  7. Proposed Study sites

  8. 2 CVM-S4.26 Los Angeles-area hazard maps 1 BBP 1D Los Angeles-area hazard map 1 CVM-H 11.9, no GTL Los Angeles-area hazard map Hazard curves for 286 sites x 4 conditions, at 3s, 5s, 10s 1144 sets of 2-component SGTs Seismograms for all ruptures (~470M) Peak amplitudes in DB for 3s, 5s, 10s Study 14.2 Data Products

  9. First CVM-S4.26 hazard maps First CVM-H, no GTL hazard maps First 1D hazard maps First study using AWP-SGT-GPU First CyberShake Study using a single workflow on one system (Blue Waters) Study 14.2 Notables

  10. Study 14.2 Parameters • 0.5 Hz, deterministic • 200 m spacing • CVMs • Vs min = 500 m/s • UCERF 2 • Graves & Pitarka (2010) rupture variations

  11. Verification • 4 sites (USC, PAS, WNGC, SBSM) • AWP-SGT-CPU, CVM-S4.26 • AWP-SGT-GPU, CVM-S4.26 • AWP-SGT-CPU, BBP 1D • AWP-SGT-GPU, CVM-H 11.9, no GTL • Plotted with previously calculated curves

  12. CVM-S4.26 (CPU) CVM-S4.26 (orange), CVM-S (blue), CVM-H 11.9 (magenta)

  13. CVM-S4.26 (GPU) CVM-S4.26 GPU (magenta), CPU (orange)

  14. CVM-H, no GTL (CPU) 3 sec, CVM-H 11.9 no GTL (black), CVM-H 11.9 with GTL (purple)

  15. BBP 1D BBP 1D (black), CVM-S4 (blue), CVM-H 11.9 (magenta)

  16. Computational Requirements • Computational time: 275K node-hrs • SGT Computational time: 180K node-hrs • CPU: 86K node-hrs • GPU: 52K node-hrs • Study 13.4 had 29% overrun on SGTs • PP Computational time: 95K node-hrs • 70K node-hrs • Study 13.4 had 35% overrun on PP • Current allocation has 3.0M node-hrs remaining

  17. Storage Requirements • Blue Waters • Unpurged: 45 TB (for SGTs) • Purged: 12 TB (seismograms) + 771 TB (temp) • SCEC • Archived: 12.5 TB (seismograms, PSA files) • Database: 210 GB (PSA at 3, 5, 10s) • Temporary: 5.5 TB (workflow logs)

  18. Estimated Duration • Limiting factors: • Queue time • Especially for XK nodes, could be substantial percentage of run time • Blue Waters -> SCEC transfer • If Blue Waters throughput is very high, transfer could be bottleneck • With queues, estimated completion is 4 weeks • With a reservation, completion depends on the reservation size

  19. Personnel Support • Scientists • Tom Jordan, Kim Olsen, Rob Graves • Technical Lead • Scott Callaghan • Job Submission / Run Monitoring • Scott Callaghan, David Gill, Phil Maechling • NCSA Support • Omar Padron, Tim Bouvet • Workflow Support • Karan Vahi, Gideon Juve

  20. Risks • Queue times on Blue Waters • In tests, at times GPU queue times have been > 1 day • Congestion protection events (network overloaded) • If triggered consistently, will either need to throttle post-processing or suspend run until improvements are developed

  21. Thanks for your time!

More Related