[aspect-devel] Continental extension model

[Mohamed Gouiza]

Hi John,

I added a couple of suggestions to the commit request of the continental_extension_cookbook

Thanks for the DG method. I am running the development versions of ASPECT and deal.ii but from a month ago or so.

On a different matter, is there a postprocessor that allows to visualize the dominant creep law (dislocation vs diffusion) if I choose composite flow in my material model?

Cheers,

From: Aspect-devel [mailto:aspect-devel-bounces at geodynamics.org] On Behalf Of John Naliboff
Sent: 20 October 2016 21:53
To: aspect-devel at geodynamics.org
Subject: Re: [aspect-devel] Continental extension model

Hi Mohamed,

The value is indeed related to the fact that there is inflow at the base.  Many months ago, I was seeing odd behavior in the compositional fields and I suspected not having the mantle layer extend well past the model base might be one of the reasons.

However, at the moment I can't recall if this alone fixed the issue.  In theory, the simulation should work fine as long as the mantle layer is defined as extending exactly to the model base.

Aside, one way to improve the accuracy of the compositional field advection is by using the DG method option for the compositional discretization.  In the input file I sent you, add the following lines:
    subsection Discretization
      set Use discontinuous composition discretization = true
      subsection Stabilization parameters
          set Use limiter for discontinuous composition solution = true # apply the limiter to the DG solutions
          set Global composition maximum = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0
          set Global composition minimum =  0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
      end
    end

To use this option you will need to work of the development version of both ASPECT and deal.ii.  Let us know if you have any issues getting things installed on this front or with using the DG method.  If you see anything odd in the models, please do not hesitate to email the list!

Last, I just opened a pull request for a cookbook related to this input file.  You can check out my forked copy ASPECT (branch continental_extension_cookbook) if you want to take a look at it before it gets merged.  Even better, make some comments on the pull request!

Cheers,
John



*************************************************

John Naliboff

Assistant Project Scientist, CIG

Earth & Planetary Sciences Dept., UC Davis
On 10/20/2016 08:02 AM, Mohamed Gouiza wrote:
Hi John,

In the continental extension input file that you sent me, the mantle compositional field is defined as 70.e3 && y>-100.e3
Is the -100.e3 a typo or is it because of the prescribed inflow at the base of the model?

Mohamed

From: Aspect-devel [mailto:aspect-devel-bounces at geodynamics.org] On Behalf Of John Naliboff
Sent: 10 October 2016 17:12
To: aspect-devel at geodynamics.org<mailto:aspect-devel at geodynamics.org>
Subject: Re: [aspect-devel] Continental extension model

Hi Mohamed,

An example continental extension input file is attached, which will be submitted as a cookbook example in the next few days.

In this example, extension is driven by prescribed outflow on the sides and inflow at the base.  The rheology is dislocation creep with different flow laws for the upper/lower crust and mantle.  Internal friction angle (20 degrees) (20 MPa) are within the range of commonly used values.  No strain-weakening, but I have a pull request open that implements this.

Most extension problems include the asthenosphere, while this model only goes down to 100 km.  As such, I would only use this type of setup for studying early stage extension.  Any problems examining extension from start to breakup should extend to at least 150 km. In this case, one might alter the simple boundary conditions I've prescribed.

Hope this helps and let me know you if you have any questions about the input file.

Cheers,
John







*************************************************

John Naliboff

Assistant Project Scientist, CIG

Earth & Planetary Sciences Dept., UC Davis
On 10/10/2016 12:59 AM, Mohamed Gouiza wrote:
Hi John,

I looked for the continental extension model that you showed in the online workshop last month, but couldn’t find it in tests/ folder.
I’ve been running several extension models with the visco-plastic material model and I am interested in knowing the visco-plastic law parameters that you used and how do you prescribe the boundary conditions: is the extension rate defined the same way as in the crustal deformation example in the cookbook by Cedric?

Thank you

-------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Gouiza, Research Fellow
Basin Structure Group, Institute of Applied Geosciences
University of Leeds, School of Earth and Environment
Leeds,  LS2 9JT, UK
M.Gouiza at leeds.ac.uk<mailto:M.Gouiza at leeds.ac.uk>
+44 7985 782073
-------------------------------------------------






_______________________________________________

Aspect-devel mailing list

Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org<mailto:Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org>

http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aspect-devel





_______________________________________________

Aspect-devel mailing list

Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org<mailto:Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org>

http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aspect-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geodynamics.org/pipermail/aspect-devel/attachments/20161021/17b25f98/attachment-0001.html>