[cig-commits] commit: Added Melosh reference. Set line numbers in response.
Mercurial
hg at geodynamics.org
Wed Feb 6 14:00:59 PST 2013
changeset: 163:cc62fd790cf5
tag: tip
user: Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov>
date: Wed Feb 06 14:00:56 2013 -0800
files: faultRup.tex references.bib response_jgr.tex
description:
Added Melosh reference. Set line numbers in response.
diff -r 76c5affdcffd -r cc62fd790cf5 faultRup.tex
--- a/faultRup.tex Wed Feb 06 13:23:54 2013 -0800
+++ b/faultRup.tex Wed Feb 06 14:00:56 2013 -0800
@@ -207,19 +207,23 @@ simplifications as possible, much of our
simplifications as possible, much of our work in developing PyLith has
focused on modeling fault slip with application to quasi-static
simulations of interseismic and coseismic deformation and dynamic
-simulations of earthquake rupture propagation. We plan to seamlessly
-couple these two types of simulations together to resolve the
-earthquake cycle. Implementing slip on the potentially nonplanar fault
-surface differentiates these types of problems from many other
-elasticity problems. Complexities arise because earthquakes may
-involve offset on multiple, intersecting irregularly shaped fault
-surfaces in the interior of a modeling domain. Furthermore, we want
-the flexibility to either prescribe the slip on the fault or have the
-fault slip evolve according to a fault constitutive model that
-specifies the friction on the fault surface. Here, we describe a
-robust, yet flexible method for implementing fault slip with a domain
-decomposition approach, its effect on the overall design of PyLith,
-and verification of its implementation using benchmarks.
+simulations of earthquake rupture propagation. This effort builds on
+our previous work on developing the numerical modeling software EqSim
+\citep{Aagaard:etal:BSSA:2001} for dynamic spontaneous rupture
+simulations and Tecton \citep{TODO} for quasi-static interseismic and
+postseismic simulations. We plan to seamlessly couple these two types
+of simulations together to resolve the earthquake cycle. Implementing
+slip on the potentially nonplanar fault surface differentiates these
+types of problems from many other elasticity problems. Complexities
+arise because earthquakes may involve offset on multiple, intersecting
+irregularly shaped fault surfaces in the interior of a modeling
+domain. Furthermore, we want the flexibility to either prescribe the
+slip on the fault or have the fault slip evolve according to a fault
+constitutive model that specifies the friction on the fault
+surface. Here, we describe a robust, yet flexible method for
+implementing fault slip with a domain decomposition approach, its
+effect on the overall design of PyLith, and verification of its
+implementation using benchmarks.
% ------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{Numerical Model of Fault Slip}
@@ -321,11 +325,10 @@ directions.
directions.
The domain decomposition approach for imposing fault slip or tractions
-on a fault is similar to the ``traction at split nodes'' (TSN)
-technique used in a number of finite-difference and finite-element
-codes
-\citep{Andrews:1999,Bizzarri:Cocco:2005,Day:etal:2005,Duan:Oglesby:2005,Dalguer:Day:2007,Moczo:etal:2007}
-(ADD CITATION TO MELOSH AND RAEFSKY BSSA 1981 AS WELL, BUT CALL IT SPLIT NODES?),
+on a fault is similar to the ``split nodes'' and ``traction at split
+nodes'' (TSN) techniques used in a number of finite-difference and
+finite-element codes
+\citep{Melosh:Raefsky:1981,Andrews:1999,Bizzarri:Cocco:2005,Day:etal:2005,Duan:Oglesby:2005,Dalguer:Day:2007,Moczo:etal:2007},
but differs from imposing fault slip via double couple point
sources. The domain decomposition approach treats the fault surface as
a frictional contact interface, and the tractions correspond directly
diff -r 76c5affdcffd -r cc62fd790cf5 references.bib
--- a/references.bib Wed Feb 06 13:23:54 2013 -0800
+++ b/references.bib Wed Feb 06 14:00:56 2013 -0800
@@ -18,7 +18,8 @@
volume = 91,
number = 6,
pages = {1765--1796},
- month = dec
+ month = dec,
+ doi = {10.1785/0120000257},
}
@Article{Chen:Lapusta:2009,
@@ -119,6 +120,18 @@
release. Evolution of postseismic deformation is
consistent with rate-strengthening frictional
afterslip.},
+}
+
+ at Article{Melosh:Raefsky:1981,
+ author = {Melosh, J. and Raefsky, A.},
+ title = {A simple and efficient method for introducing faults
+ into finite element computations},
+ journal = BSSA,
+ year = 1981,
+ volume = 71,
+ number = 5,
+ pages = {1391--1400},
+ month = oct,
}
@Article{Dieterich:Richards-Dinger:2010,
@@ -671,6 +684,7 @@
year = {2001},
month = oct,
pages = {1099--1111},
+ doi = {10.1785/0120000714},
abstract = {The 1999 M 7.6 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake produced
a data set of unparalleled size and quality,
particularly in the near-source region where data
diff -r 76c5affdcffd -r cc62fd790cf5 response_jgr.tex
--- a/response_jgr.tex Wed Feb 06 13:23:54 2013 -0800
+++ b/response_jgr.tex Wed Feb 06 14:00:56 2013 -0800
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
but it is not stated explicitly.
}{%
Added a statement about how 3-D variations in physical properties are
- handled at line ??.
+ handled at line 208.
}%
\comment{%
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
along these lines would be helpful
}{%
Added a statement about suitability of the code for ground motion
- simulations at line ??.
+ simulations at line 274.
}%
\comment{%
@@ -81,13 +81,13 @@
L 43: see Hillers et al, 2006, 2007 for earthquake-cycle simulations
with variability in rate-and-state parameters
}{%
- Added reference to Hillers et al. 2006 at line ??.
+ Added reference to Hillers et al. 2006 at line 45.
}%
\comment{%
L 106+112: which boundary conditions? not specified explicitly so far
}{%
- Explicitly mention which boundary conditions at line ??.
+ Explicitly mention which boundary conditions at lines 118--120.
}%
\comment{%
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@
particular problem's set ups are given to the PyLith repository.
}{%
Added statement that the mesh generation and simulation parameter
- files are available in the CIG subversion repository at line ??. The
+ files are available in the CIG subversion repository at line 732. The
directories for each the code verification benchmarks are also
added to the text.
}%
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@
}{%
Added a discussion of the selection of basis functions for the
Lagrange multipliers and how they satisfy the LBB stability
- criterion at lines ??--??.
+ criterion at line 268.
}%
\comment{%
@@ -267,7 +267,8 @@
these two aspects reconciled?
}{%
Added clarification that in quasi-static simulations the time
- stepping is simply a series of static simulations at line ??.
+ stepping is simply a series of static simulations at lines 223 and
+ 793.
}%
\comment{%
@@ -387,7 +388,7 @@
properties of rocks. This is an exciting prospect.
}{%
Added a paragraph discussing the Barbot et al. (2012) study in the
- context of earthquake cycle simulations at lines ??--??.
+ context of earthquake cycle simulations at lines 71--79.
}%
@@ -485,11 +486,11 @@
coming from elasticity must also be included. These are included in
our formulation.
- To clarify this distinction, we added a paragraph (lines ??--??)
- discussing the similarities and differences between our domain
- decomposition approach using Lagrange multipliers and other methods
- of implementing fault slip, including ``Traction at Split Nodes''
- and double couple point sources.
+ To clarify this distinction, we added two paragraphs (lines
+ 150--165) discussing the similarities and differences between our
+ domain decomposition approach using Lagrange multipliers and other
+ methods of implementing fault slip, including ``Traction at Split
+ Nodes'' and double couple point sources.
}%
\comment{%
@@ -504,7 +505,7 @@
is assumed, but I'm not entirely sure.
}{%
Added a statement that the solver is independent of the fault
- constitutive model at line ??.
+ constitutive model at line 344.
}%
\comment{%
@@ -517,7 +518,7 @@
}{%
We added a note that the solver could be
tuned to yield faster convergence for specific fault constitutive
- models at line ??.
+ models at line 346.
}%
More information about the CIG-COMMITS
mailing list