CyberShake Study 14.2 Science Readiness Review
-
Upload
ayanna-mcmahon -
Category
Documents
-
view
34 -
download
0
description
Transcript of CyberShake Study 14.2 Science Readiness Review
CyberShake Study 14.2 Science Readiness Review
Study 14.2 Scientific Goals
• 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)
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.
CVM-S4.26 vs. CVM-S4
CVM-H 11.9, no GTL Model
BBP 1D Model
Proposed Study sites
Study 14.2 Data Products
• 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 Notables
• 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 Parameters
• 0.5 Hz, deterministic• 200 m spacing
• CVMs• Vs min = 500 m/s
• UCERF 2
• Graves & Pitarka (2010) rupture variations
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
CVM-S4.26 (CPU)
CVM-S4.26 (orange), CVM-S (blue), CVM-H 11.9 (magenta)
CVM-S4.26 (GPU)
CVM-S4.26 GPU (magenta), CPU (orange)
CVM-H, no GTL (CPU)
3 sec, CVM-H 11.9 no GTL (black), CVM-H 11.9 with GTL (purple)
BBP 1D
BBP 1D (black), CVM-S4 (blue), CVM-H 11.9 (magenta)
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
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)
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
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
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
Thanks for your time!