[cig-commits] commit: Started filling in benchmark section.

[Mercurial]

changeset:   97:81b8c0377c5d
tag:         tip
user:        Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov>
date:        Tue Apr 10 15:26:21 2012 -0700
files:       faultRup.tex
description:
Started filling in benchmark section.


diff -r 33f5d243f8ad -r 81b8c0377c5d faultRup.tex
--- a/faultRup.tex	Mon Apr 09 17:26:48 2012 -0700
+++ b/faultRup.tex	Tue Apr 10 15:26:21 2012 -0700
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
 % ======================================================================
 % TEMPORARY (must be removed for submission)
 % ======================================================================
-% :SUBMIT: comment out these commands (\new command not allowed)
+% :SUBMIT: comment out these commands (\newcommand not allowed)
 \usepackage{color}
 \newcommand\brad[1]{{\color{red}\bf [BRAD: #1]}}
 \newcommand\matt[1]{{\color{blue}\bf [MATT: #1]}}
@@ -808,6 +808,7 @@ fault.
 \section{Solver Customization}
 
 \subsection{Quasi-static Simulations}
+\label{sec:solver:quasi-static}
 
 In order to solve the large, sparse systems of linear equations
 arising in our quasi-static simulations, we employ preconditioned
@@ -1126,20 +1127,63 @@ avoid performing a line search in comput
 
 % ------------------------------------------------------------------
 \section{Performance Benchmark}
+\label{sec:performance:benchmark}
+
+We compare the relative performance of the various preconditioners
+discussed in section~\ref{sec:solver:quasistatic} for quasi-static
+problems using a simulation with three vertical, strike-slip
+faults. Figure~\ref{fig:solvertest:geometry} shows the domain spanning
+a region 72 km by 72 km by 36 km. We apply Dirichlet boundary
+conditions on two lateral sides with 2.0 m of shearing motion and no
+motion perpendicular to the boundary. We also apply a Dirichlet
+boundary condition to the bottom of the domain to prevent vertical
+motion. We prescribe uniform slip on the three faults with zero slip
+at the edges. All three faults have a width of 12 km; the center fault
+is ?? km long, whereas the other two faults are ?? km long.
 
 \begin{itemize}
-\item \brad{Solver test}
-\item Comparison of preconditioner performance
-\item Weak scaling performance for field split with custom preconditioner
+\item Description (geometry, BC, fault slip)
+\item Parameters (physical properties)
+\item Meshing (cell types)
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsection{Preconditioner Performance}
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Simulation parameters (discretization, nprocs, pc)
+\item Iterations, explanation
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsection{Parallel Scaling Performance}
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Setup of scaling (discretization, nprocs)
+\item Description of scaling (solver steps, no output)
+\item discussion
 \end{itemize}
 
 % ------------------------------------------------------------------
 \section{Code Verification Benchmarks}
+\label{sec:verification:benchmarks}
+
+\subsection{Quasi-static}
+
 \begin{itemize}
 \item Savage and Prescott
   \begin{itemize}
-  \item Compare hex8 and tet4 against analytic solution
+    \item Parameters (mesh, geometry, discretization size, physical properties)
+  \item Figures
+    \begin{itemize}
+    \item Geometry
+    \item profiles at 3 and 12 cycles
+    \end{itemize}
+  \item Spin-up, compare hex8 and tet4 against analytic solution
   \end{itemize}
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsection{Dynamic}
+
+\begin{itemize}
 \item Spontaneous rupture benchmark: TPV12, TPV13
   \begin{itemize}
   \item dipping fault, depth dependent stresses, super-shear rupture,
@@ -1147,12 +1191,28 @@ avoid performing a line search in comput
   \item Not ideal due to discontinuities in spatial variation of parameters
   \item 2-D, compare quad4 and tri3
   \item 3-D, only tet4 (complex geometry)
+  \item Figures
+    \begin{itemize}
+    \item 3-D geometry (points for comparison)
+    \item 2-D: final slip profile
+    \item 2-D: slip rate time histories (4 points) [TPV12, TPV13]
+    \item 3-D: rupture contours
+    \item 3-D: final slip contours
+    \item 3-D: slip rate time histories (4 points) [TPV12, TPV13]
+    \end{itemize}
   \end{itemize}
 \item Spontaneous rupture 3-D: TPV16
   \begin{itemize}
   \item Heterogeneous initial stresses, more consistent nucleation
   \item No discontinuities in spatial variation of parameters
   \item compare hex8 and tet4
+  \item Figures
+    \begin{itemize}
+    \item 3-D geometry (points for comparison)
+    \item 3-D: rupture contours
+    \item 3-D: final slip contours
+    \item 3-D: slip rate time histories (4 points) [TPV12, TPV13]
+    \end{itemize}
   \end{itemize}  
 \end{itemize}