1 / 18

Participants of Nurmerical Benchmark Test and Misfit Criteria for Summarizing the Results

Participants of Nurmerical Benchmark Test and Misfit Criteria for Summarizing the Results. Seiji Tsuno (LGIT). Participants. FS: at station OGFH (borehole location) for a Mw=6.0 strike-slip event occuring on the Eastern part of the Belledonne Border Fault. Output.

garth-guy
Download Presentation

Participants of Nurmerical Benchmark Test and Misfit Criteria for Summarizing the Results

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. Participants of Nurmerical Benchmark Test and Misfit Criteria for Summarizing the Results Seiji Tsuno (LGIT)

  2. Participants FS: at station OGFH (borehole location) for a Mw=6.0 strike-slip event occuring on the Eastern part of the Belledonne Border Fault

  3. Output # Waveforms (Acceleration, velocity and displacement) # Fourier spectra # Response spectra (Pseudo-velocity response spectra; h=5%) # Maximum value of acceleration, velocity and displacement # Misfit criteria (Anderson’s method & Kristekova’s method) # Spectral ratio (for reference site;OGMU or of bore-hole;OGFB) #Standard deviation error and RMS misfit in each output.

  4. Misfit criteria # We will evaluate the results estimated by participants, using the misfit criteria proposed by J. Anderson and M. Kristekova. # Mainly, J. Anderson and M. Kristekova evaluated the performance of the proposed misfit-criteria by horizontal components of observed earthquake records and canonical signals, respectively. But… # In this numerical benchmark, we can compared many theoretical seismograms estimated by participants with observation.

  5. Quantitative measure of the goodness-of-fit of synthetic seismogramsProposed by John G. Anderson(13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering) # He calibrated the proposal criterion, using two components of synthetic seismograms with 1000 pairs and observations with 1165 pairs. # And also, he applied this measurement system to two horizontal components of a single station recording the M8.1 Michoacan earthquake. # Lastly, this criterion was applied to a blind prediction of ground motions at a station PS10 for comparison of observation with synthetic seismograms.

  6. Criteria Goodness of fit measurementsFrequency bands used (Hz) • C1 Arias Duration B1 0.05 – 0.1 • C2 Energy Duration B2 0.1 – 0.2 • C3 Arias Integral B3 0.2 – 0.5 • C4 Energy Integral B4 0.5 – 1.0 • C5 Peak Acceleration B5 1.0 – 2.0 • C6 Peak Velocity B6 2.0 – 5.0 • C7 Peak Displacement B7 5.0 – 10.0 • C8 Response Spectra B8 10.0 – 20.0 • C9 Fourier Spectra B 20.0 – 50.0 • C10 Cross Correlation B10 0.05 – 50.0 The similarity score (S1) is averaged by all fit criterion.

  7. Example (application) Where PS10 is 3km from the fault In the M7.9 Denali Fault, Alaska, earthquake of Nov. 3, 2002. PS10 Fig. Acceleration records of NS and EW components at PS10 Fig. Fourier spectra for acceleration records at PS10

  8. Individual scores -1

  9. Individual scores -2

  10. Similarity score S1 = 6.9811296

  11. Definition of familiar function Fig. Definitions of function related to similarity score Fig. Definitions of function related to similarity score (normalized)

  12. Misfit criteria for quantitative comparison of seismograms Proposed by Miriam Kristekova. et al.(Submitted to BSSA, January 2006) # The proposal criteria are based on the time-frequency representation (TFR) of the seismograms obtained as the continuous wavelet transform (CWT) with the analyzing Morlet wavelet. # They tested properties of the misfit criteria using canonical signals, which were specifically amplitude, phase-shift, time-shift, and frequency modified. # And also, they calculated the misfit criteria for four different numerical solutions for a single layer over half-space (the SCEC LOH.3 Problem) and the reference FK (frequency-wavenumber) solution.

  13. Criteria Misfit Criteria TFEM - Time-frequency envelope misfit TFPM - Time-frequency phase misfit TEM - Time-dependent envelope misfit TPM - Time-dependent phase misfit FEM - Frequency-dependent envelope misfit FPM - Frequency-dependent phase misfit EM - Single-valued envelope misfit PM - Single-valued phase misfit The single-value about EM, PM is obtained.

  14. Exemple (application) -reproduced PS10 where is 3km from the fault In the M7.9 Denali Fault, Alaska, earthquake of Nov. 3, 2002. PS10 Fig. Acceleration records of NS and EW components at PS10 Fig. Fourier spectra for acceleration records at PS10

  15. Continuous wavelet transform(CWT) 5sec shifted early in each result

  16. Misfit Criteria -1 TFEM - Time-frequency envelope misfit TFPM - Time-frequency phase misfit

  17. Misfit Criteria -2 Frequency-dependent envelope misfit Time-dependent envelope misfit Time-dependent phase misfit Frequency-dependent phase misfit

  18. Misfit score EM PMRMS 70.9535 46.1713133.382 STATION CODE EM PM RMS PS09-Alaska 63.7143 61.6312 143.93608 PS10-Alaska 70.9535 46.1713 133.38204 PS11-Alaska 64.3263 63.8550 145.66619 FA02-Alaska 73.9071 57.9291 165.12640 STATION CODE SIMILARITY SCORE(S1) M PS09-Alaska 7.1210961 7.9 PS10-Alaska 6.9811296 7.9 PS11-Alaska 7.1379919 7.9 FA02-Alaska 6.4276643 7.9

More Related