[cig-commits] commit: Add response to internal reviews.

Mercurial hg at geodynamics.org
Tue Aug 28 13:08:02 PDT 2012 

changeset:   142:b4719869dc61
tag:         tip
user:        Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov>
date:        Tue Aug 28 13:07:58 2012 -0700
files:       faultRup.tex response_usgs.tex
description:
Add response to internal reviews.


diff -r 9377a2030d5a -r b4719869dc61 faultRup.tex
--- a/faultRup.tex	Tue Aug 28 12:03:13 2012 -0700
+++ b/faultRup.tex	Tue Aug 28 13:07:58 2012 -0700
@@ -1837,6 +1837,40 @@ rupture propagation.
 
 \clearpage
 \begin{table}
+\caption{Performance Benchmark Parameters\tablenotemark{a}}
+\label{tab:solvertest:parameters}
+\centering
+\begin{tabular}{llc}
+  \hline
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Parameter} & Value \\
+  \hline
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Domain} & \\
+    & Length & 72 km \\
+    & Width & 72 km \\
+    & Height & 36 km \\
+    & Angle between faults & 60 $\deg$ \\
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Elastic properties} & \\
+    & Vp & 5.774 km/s \\
+    & Vs & 3.333 km/s \\
+    & Density ($\rho$) & 2700. kg/m$^3$ \\
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Middle fault} & \\
+    & Length & 39.19 km \\
+    & Width & 12 km \\
+    & Slip & 1.0 m RL \\
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{End faults} & \\
+    & Length & 43.74 km \\
+    & Width & 12 km \\
+    & Slip & 0.5 m LL \\
+  \hline
+\end{tabular}
+\tablenotetext{a}{Simulation parameters for the performance benchmark
+  with three faults embedded in a volume domain as shown in
+  Figure~\ref{fig:solvertest:geometry}. We prescribe right-lateral
+  (RL) slip on the middle fault and left-lateral (LL) slip on the end faults.}
+\end{table}
+
+
+\begin{table}
 \caption{Preconditioner Performance\tablenotemark{a}}
 \label{tab:solvertest:preconditioner:iterates}
 \centering
@@ -1878,40 +1912,6 @@ rupture propagation.
   increase with problem size. Furthermore, the the field
   split preconditioner with multiplicative factorization and the custom
   fault block preconditioner provides the shortest runtime.}
-\end{table}
-
-
-\begin{table}
-\caption{Performance Benchmark Parameters\tablenotemark{a}}
-\label{tab:solvertest:parameters}
-\centering
-\begin{tabular}{llc}
-  \hline
-  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Parameter} & Value \\
-  \hline
-  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Domain} & \\
-    & Length & 72 km \\
-    & Width & 72 km \\
-    & Height & 36 km \\
-    & Angle between faults & 60 $\deg$ \\
-  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Elastic properties} & \\
-    & Vp & 5.774 km/s \\
-    & Vs & 3.333 km/s \\
-    & Density ($\rho$) & 2700. kg/m$^3$ \\
-  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Middle fault} & \\
-    & Length & 39.19 km \\
-    & Width & 12 km \\
-    & Slip & 1.0 m RL \\
-  \multicolumn{2}{l}{End faults} & \\
-    & Length & 43.74 km \\
-    & Width & 12 km \\
-    & Slip & 0.5 m LL \\
-  \hline
-\end{tabular}
-\tablenotetext{a}{Simulation parameters for the performance benchmark
-  with three faults embedded in a volume domain as shown in
-  Figure~\ref{fig:solvertest:geometry}. We prescribe right-lateral
-  (RL) slip on the middle fault and left-lateral (LL) slip on the end faults.}
 \end{table}
 
 
diff -r 9377a2030d5a -r b4719869dc61 response_usgs.tex
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/response_usgs.tex	Tue Aug 28 13:07:58 2012 -0700
@@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
+%-*- TeX -*-
+%
+% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+%
+%                           Brad T. Aagaard
+%                        U.S. Geological Survey
+%
+% <LicenseText>
+%
+% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+%
+
+\documentclass{reviewresponse}
+
+% ==================================================================
+\begin{document}
+
+\maketitle
+
+% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+\reviewer{Reviewer \#1: Ruth Harris}
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 1, Abstract, I am thinking that the last sentence should be
+  omitted – usually one describes future work in the discussion
+  section, not in the abstract (well unless it’s an AGU abstract).
+}{%
+  Removed last sentence. Kept sentence related to potential of
+  methodology in conclusions.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 1, Bottom of first column, left side of page, Introduction:
+  Please add at least these two references to the list of Aagaard et
+  al., 2001; Peyrat et al., 2001; Oglesby and Day, 2001, Dunham and
+  Archuleta: Both of these did formal dynamic rupture calculations for
+  two or more coseismic events, but performed a kluge for the
+  intervening time (interseismic) tectonic loading:
+
+  Mikumo, T., T. Miyatake, and M.A. Santoyo (1998), Dynamic rupture of
+  asperities and stress change during a sequence of large interplate
+  earthquakes in the Mexican subduction zone, Bull.  Seism. Soc. Am.,
+  88, 686‐702, 1998.
+
+  Harris, R.A., and S.M. Day (1999), Dynamic 3D simulations of
+  earthquakes on en echelon faults, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26,
+  2089‐2092, 1999.
+}{%
+  Added citations to suggested references.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 1, Column 2, Top of page (continued from Column 1, bottom of page).
+  For the ‘Earthquake Simulators’, in addition to classic work by Ward and by Rundle, please also
+  reference additional front‐runner work by Robinson and Benites. For example,
+
+  Robinson, R., and R. Benites (2001), Upgrading a synthetic seismicity model for more realistic fault
+  ruptures. Geophysical Research Letters, 28(9): 1843‐1846.
+
+  Robinson, R., and R. Benites (1996), Synthetic seismicity models for the Wellington region, New
+  Zealand: Implications for the temporal distribution of large events, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 27833‐
+  27844.
+
+  Robinson, R., and R. Benites (1995) Synthetic seismicity models of multiple interacting faults.
+  Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth, 100(B9): 18229‐18238.
+}{%
+  Cited Robinson and Benites (1995) to provide reference to first
+  major work of authors in this area.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 2, Column 1, I think that paragraphs 3 and 4 could be omitted or rewritten.
+}{%
+  Removed paragraph.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 4, Column 2, Section 2.3. This paragraph is not as JGR‐ish as
+  I’d like it to be. I recommend either omitting it or trimming it.
+}{%
+  Removed paragraph.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 5, Column 2, 1st paragraph. Rate‐state friction is mentioned, but not really introduced until
+  the next two paragraphs.
+}{%
+  Removed explicit reference to rate-state friction and just kept the
+  general comment on the logarithmic dependence.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 5, Column 2, 3rd paragraph. I recommend including a reference for each of the four
+  constitutive frameworks mentioned.
+}{%
+  Added references for all but static friction since it is developed centuries ago.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 5, Column 2, Section 3.0. Finite‐Element Mesh Processing, 
+  Does the reader already know what the ‘mesh’ is? Perhaps refer the reader to Figure 3?
+}{%
+  Added description of what is meant by a mesh.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 5, Column 2, Section 3.0 I’m wondering if this section could benefit from a new figure or
+  two, or referring to an existing figure or two.
+}{%
+  Added figure showing acyclic graph and covering relations.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 9. Column 2, middle of the page. ‘For this benchmark we use …’ How about referring the
+  reader to a table too?
+}{%
+  Added a table with parameters.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 9, Column 2, last paragraph. Please explain ‘spin‐up’ for the reader who isn’t a modeling
+  specialist.
+}{%
+  Reworded sentence to make meaning of ``spin-up'' clear.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 10, Colum 1, Section 6.2, Maybe revise the first sentence a
+  little? A possibility: ‘As a test of PyLith's dynamic rupture
+  solutions, we use SCEC spontaneous rupture benchmark TPV13, that
+  models a high stress‐drop, supershear, dip‐slip earthquake that
+  produces extreme (very large) ground motions, large slip, and fast
+  slip‐rates [Harris et al., 2011].’
+}{%
+  Revised to suggested wording.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 10, Column 2, 3rd paragraph. Please also include the reference for Shuo Ma’s code, along
+  with the other three code’s references that are already included.
+}{%
+  Added reference to Shuo Ma's code.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 10, Column 2, near the bottom of the page. Please check ‘mode II (along strike)’.
+}{%
+  Corrected mode-II to mode-III.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Page 11, Column 1. Please check the Conclusions section. It has some typos and could be
+  enhanced by editing a few of the sentences.
+}{%
+  Rewrote the conclusions section and fixed typos.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Figure numbering – in the text, Figure 10 appears right after Figure 1, and Figure 11 appears
+  right after Figure 9. Please check the figure numbering order.
+}{%
+  Figure ordering is limited by the AGU LaTeX template and how it
+  treats single and double column figures.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Figures – I am thinking that a few of the figures could probably
+  include some references. E.g., figures 5 and 6 ‐ Savage and
+  Prescott, 1978, figure 7 ‐ Harris et al., 2011, etc.
+}{%
+  Chose not to cite Savage and Prescott (1978) and Harris et
+  al. (2011) in figure captions. References are included in the main
+  text.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Tables ‐ How about including a table that lists the parameters for
+  the Savage and Prescott benchmark?
+}{%
+  Added table of parameters for the Savage and Prescott benchmark.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Tables ‐ Please check the table numbering. It looks like Table 3 precedes Table 2 in the text.
+}{%
+  Fixed ordering of tables.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  References – there are some references that could be added. Most are
+  listed in the preceding comments. 
+}{%
+  Added suggested references but only cited the first relevant study
+  by an author rather than all studies by an author on a given topic.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Additional shorter comments are written directly on the annotated
+  manuscript. 
+}{%
+  I incorporated nearly all of the suggested wording revisions. I did
+  leave ``memory bandwidth'' as is rather than trim it to just
+  ``memory'' because we are referring to the bandwidth of the memory.
+}%
+
+
+% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+\reviewer{Reviewer \#2: Fred Pollitz}
+
+\comment{%
+  In eqn 21, what is the form of the time-dependent elastic tensor, or
+  how is it specified computationally (memory variables, etc)?
+}{%
+  Added statement that the elastic tensor is constant for materials
+  with a linear response and is computed from state variables and the
+  current deformation otherwise.
+}
+
+\comment{%
+  Section 2.2, For dynamic simulations, what does the Jacobian of the entire system look like?
+}{%
+  Added statement that the general form of the Jacobian of the entire
+  system is identical to that in quasi-static simulations.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Figure 10 is referenced before Figures 2-9.
+}{%
+  Figure ordering is limited by the AGU LaTeX template and how it
+  treats single and double column figures.  
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Last paragraph of section 4.1. for an application involved -> for an application involving
+}{%
+  Fixed.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  First paragraph of section 5. ``The suite of simulations examine
+  problem sizes increasing by about a factor of two from $1.8\times10^5$
+  DOF (1 process) to $1.1\times10^7$ DOF (64 processes).'' It isn't clear
+  to me how a factor of two in problem size increases DOF from 1 to
+  64.
+}{%
+  Reworked sentence to clarify relation between the number of DOF and
+  the number of processes.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Section 6.1. ``We constrain the vertical displacement on the bottom
+  of the domain.'' Shoulthe sentence be continued ``\ldots to be
+  zero.''
+}{%
+  Yes. Fixed.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Second paragraph of section 6.2. Figure 9 -> Figure 9a.
+}{%
+  Fixed.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Third paragraph of section 6.2. Figure 9 -> Figure 9b.  
+}{%
+  Fixed.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Third paragraph of section 6.2. Figure 11(a) -> Figure 11(a)-(d).
+}{%
+  Fixed.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Fourth paragraph of section 6.2. Figure 11(b) -> Figure 11(e)-(h).  
+}{%
+  Fixed.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Figure 4 caption. ``The linear solve'' Are you referring to one set of symbols in the figure?
+}{%
+  Added reference to the solid line for linear solve to clarify.
+}%
+
+\comment{%
+  Figure 7 caption. red dotes -> red dots
+}{%
+  Fixed.
+}%
+
+% ==================================================================
+\end{document}
+
+% End of file

More information about the CIG-COMMITS mailing list