<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Bruce,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for your quick response. We'll do an update and let you know how it goes.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again,</div><div>Georgia</div><div><br><div><div>On Jan 18, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Bruce Worden wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi Georgia,<br><br>There was a bug in Wald99 (and AK07) where the intensities returned were allowed to exceed the 1 to 10 range. Oddly, the limiting code was in there, but commented out -- no doubt an error on my part. Fixing these bugs (and a minor unrelated bug in grind) now produces the expected result: if all of your intensities are 1, your bias will be zero.<br><br>It is important to use converted PGM in the intensity bias because not all maps have observed intensity, and without some data we can't do the bias. Doing the bias results in a significant reduction in the error of the map. I've tested this extensively both with and without observed intensities. In cases where you do have observed intensities, those are weighted higher than the converted PGMs in the bias calculation.<br><br>You can get the updated code with 'svn update' and 'make'. Let me know how it goes.<br><br>Bruce<br><br><br>On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:19 AM, Georgia Cua wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Dear Bruce, shake-dev,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I have been working on our ShakeMap v3.5 installation in Switzerland.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I noticed something peculiar with the behaviour of the intensity bias.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I have the observed PGA and PGV from a M3.3 in Switzerland. (To be safe, I used Small as the GMPE and Wald99 as the GMICE. The behaviour is similar when I use our Swiss-specific GMPE and GMICE.)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">When I run this event with the observed PGM as input, there are large bias values for PGA and PGV, -1.5 and -0.7. (Those are expected, as PGA and PGV in Switzerland tend to be lower for a given magnitude than predicted by California relationships.) What troubles me is that the intensity magnitude bias turns out positive (1.43).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If I run a shakemap for this event without the PGM as input (just providing the event.xml file), the maximum intensity is 3.64. When I run it with the PGM as input, the maximum intensity is 5.1, even though the PGA and PGV biases are both negative.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I've run this same event on our v3.2 installation, and there, it seems to behave as I expect, where if the PGA and PGV biases are negative, the maximum intensity using the PGM observations will be lower than when running it without the observations.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I am attaching the message logs from running shake, grind.conf, the info.xml file, as well as the regression plots.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I am not sure where I am going wrong. Thanks in advance for your help.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Georgia<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">PS. When there is no native intensity data provided as input, and no IPE is specified, should the intensity bias still calculated?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><test33.with_pgm.shake.log><ATT00001.html><grind.conf><ATT00002.html><with_pgm.info.xml><ATT00003.html><with_pgm.pga_regr.png><ATT00004.html><with_pgm.pgv_regr.png><ATT00005.html><with_pgm.mi_regr.png><ATT00006.html><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Shake-dev mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:Shake-dev@geohazards.usgs.gov">Shake-dev@geohazards.usgs.gov</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="https://geohazards.usgs.gov/mailman/listinfo/shake-dev">https://geohazards.usgs.gov/mailman/listinfo/shake-dev</a><br></blockquote><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>-----------------------------</div><div>Dr. Georgia Cua</div><div>Swiss Seismological Service</div><div>Institute of Geophysics</div><div>ETH Zurich, NO H61</div><div>Sonneggstr 5</div><div>CH-8092 Zurich</div><div>Switzerland</div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>Tel: +41-44-633-7574 </div><div>Fax: +41-44-633-1065 </div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div><a href="mailto:georgia.cua@sed.ethz.ch">georgia.cua@sed.ethz.ch</a></div><div>-----------------------------</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br></div></body></html>