Dear Dr Marco Pagani & Dr Damiano Monelli,
Thank you for your helpful comments on my issues with using OQ.
I have now a new set of problems encoutered while carrying out some PEER validation tests (Thomas et al., 2010; PEER report). It would be grateful if you could provide me any suggestion or correction.
The issue is regarding the PEER Set1 Test case 9a; this case considers a reserve fault dipping west wtih delta function at M6, and the Sadigh et al. (1997) GMPE with 3sigma.
I have attached both the plot (OQ hazard curves against PEER for all seven sites) and the input files (source model, gmpe model, configuration file).
My questions are:
1. When OQ hazard curves are compared to PEER results, I have marginal differences between OQ hazard curves and PEER. Can you please comment or provide recommendations on this discrepancy?
2. As you may have already noticed, I am getting mirrored hazard curves for site 2 and site 7 are mirrored (i.e. the hazard curve for site 2 should be for the hazard curve at site 7 and vice versa). This obviously explains that my source model is incorrect. More specifically, I have incorrect dipping direction wrong (my hazard curves are for a reverse fault dipping east).
I used a simple fault source model which considers the coordinates for the top fault trace, seismogenic depth, dip and rake whereas there is no input for strike. Can you please comment on this matter?
Thank you for your extremely helpful comments in advance.
Kind regards,
Jeongmin Han