[cig-commits] commit: More small edits.

[Mercurial]

changeset:   169:1da815add411
tag:         tip
user:        Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov>
date:        Thu Feb 07 12:16:04 2013 -0800
files:       faultRup.tex references.bib
description:
More small edits.


diff -r 443f4b2a5a50 -r 1da815add411 faultRup.tex
--- a/faultRup.tex	Thu Feb 07 09:12:09 2013 -0800
+++ b/faultRup.tex	Thu Feb 07 12:16:04 2013 -0800
@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ expressed as a relative displacement, i.
 
 In dynamic simulations we include the inertial term to
 resolve the propagation of seismic waves, with an intended focus on
-applications to earthquake physics and ground-motion simulations. The
+applications for earthquake physics and ground-motion simulations. The
 general form of the system Jacobian remains the same as in
 quasi-static simulations given in
 equation~(\ref{eqn:saddle:point}). The integral equation for the fault
@@ -654,7 +654,7 @@ Lagrange multipliers requires solving fo
 Lagrange multipliers requires solving for both the displacement field
 and the Lagrange multipliers, which correspond to fault tractions. We
 expect the displacements to be generally on the order of mm to m
-whereas the fault tractions will be on the order of 10$^6$ Pa. Thus,
+whereas the fault tractions will be on the order of MPa. Thus,
 if we use dimensioned quantities in SI units, then we would expect the
 solution to include terms that differ by up to nine orders of
 magnitude. This results in a rather ill-conditioned system. We avoid
@@ -1034,7 +1034,7 @@ Our preferred setup uses the field split
 Our preferred setup uses the field splitting options in PETSc to
 combine an AMG preconditioner for the elasticity submatrix with our
 custom fault preconditioner for the Lagrange multiplier submatrix. See
-Section~\ref{sec:performance:benchmark} for a comparison of
+section~\ref{sec:performance:benchmark} for a comparison of
 preconditioner performance for an application involving a static
 simulation with multiple faults. It shows the clear superiority of
 this setup over several other possible preconditioning strategies.
@@ -1218,7 +1218,7 @@ Consequently, the increment in fault sli
 Consequently, the increment in fault slip and Lagrange multipliers for
 each vertex can be done independently. In dynamic simulations the time
 step is small enough that the fault constitutive model is much less
-sensitive to the slip than in most quasi-static simulations, so we can
+sensitive to the slip than in most quasi-static simulations, so we 
 avoid performing a line search in computing the update.
 
 % ------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -1241,7 +1241,7 @@ along the buried edges.
 along the buried edges.
 
 We generate both hexahedral meshes and tetrahedral meshes using CUBIT
-(available from http://cubit.sandia.gov) and construct meshes so that
+(available from \url{http://cubit.sandia.gov}) and construct meshes so that
 the problem size (number of DOF) for the two different cell types
 (hexahedra and tetrahedra) are nearly the same (within 2\%). The suite
 of simulations examine increasing larger problem sizes as we increase
@@ -1251,7 +1251,7 @@ for the hexahedral meshes and 2326 m to 
 for the hexahedral meshes and 2326 m to 712 m for the tetrahedral
 meshes.  Figure~\ref{fig:solvertest:mesh} shows the 1846 m resolution
 tetrahedral mesh. As we will see in
-Section~\ref{sec:verification:quasi-static}, the hexahedral mesh for a
+section~\ref{sec:verification:quasi-static}, the hexahedral mesh for a
 given resolution in a quasi-static problem is slightly more accurate,
 so the errors in solution for each pair of meshes are larger for the
 tetrahedral mesh.
@@ -1328,7 +1328,7 @@ We evaluate the parallel performance via
 We evaluate the parallel performance via a weak scaling
 criterion. That is, we run simulations on various numbers of
 processors/cores with an increase in the problem size as the number of
-processes (with one process per core) increases to maintain the same
+processes increases (with one process per core) to maintain the same
 workload (e.g., number of cells and number of DOF) for each core. In
 ideal weak scaling the time for the various stages of the simulation
 is independent of the number of processes. For this performance
@@ -1411,7 +1411,7 @@ Geological Survey \citep{Harris:etal:SRL
 Geological Survey \citep{Harris:etal:SRL:2009}. The mesh generation
 and simulation parameter files for many of the benchmarks, including
 those discussed here, are available from the CIG subversion repository
-(http://geodynamics.org/svn/cig/short/3D/PyLith/benchmarks/trunk/). In
+(\url{http://geodynamics.org/svn/cig/short/3D/PyLith/benchmarks/trunk/}). In
 this section we focus on two benchmarks that test different scientific
 applications: quasi-static relaxation of a Maxwell viscoelastic
 material subjected to multiple earthquake cycles involving slip and
@@ -1430,7 +1430,7 @@ results against the analytical solution 
 \citet{Savage:Prescott:1978}. This problem consists of an infinitely
 long strike-slip fault in an elastic layer overlying a Maxwell
 viscoelastic half-space. The parameter files for this benchmark are
-available in the quasi-static/sceccrustdeform/savageprescott directory
+available in the {\tt quasistatic/sceccrustdeform/savageprescott} directory
 of the benchmark repository. Figure~\ref{fig:savage:prescott::solution}
 illustrates the geometry of the problem with an exaggerated view of
 the deformation during the tenth earthquake cycle. Between earthquakes
@@ -1502,10 +1502,10 @@ time step size of five years. This time 
 time step size of five years. This time step corresponds to one tenth
 of the viscoelastic relaxation time; hence it tests the accuracy of
 the viscoelastic solution for moderately large time steps relative to
-the relaxation time. Recall that the quasi-static formulation does
-not include inertial terms and time stepping is done via a series of
-static problems so that the accuracy depends only on the temporal
-variation of the boundary conditions and constitutive models.
+the relaxation time. Recall that the quasi-static formulation does not
+include inertial terms and time stepping is done via a series of
+static problems so that the temporal accuracy depends only on the
+temporal variation of the boundary conditions and constitutive models.
 
 Figure~\ref{fig:savage:prescott:profiles} compares the numerical
 results extracted on the ground surface along the center of the model
@@ -1531,7 +1531,8 @@ with the same nominal discretization siz
 with the same nominal discretization size for quasi-static solutions
 is consistent with our findings for other benchmarks. The greater
 number of polynomial terms in the basis functions of the hexahedra
-allows the model to capture a more complex deformation field.
+allows the model to capture a more complex deformation field at a
+given discretization size.
 
 \subsection{Dynamic Benchmark}
 \label{sec:verification:dynamic}
@@ -1543,8 +1544,8 @@ stress-drop, supershear, dip-slip earthq
 \citep{Harris:etal:SRL:2011}. It uses a Drucker-Prager elastoplastic
 bulk rheology and a slip-weakening friction model in a depth-dependent
 initial stress field. The parameter files for this benchmark are
-available in the dynamic/scecdynrup/tpv210-2d and
-dynamic/scecdynrup/tpv210 directories of the benchmark repository.
+available in the {\tt dynamic/scecdynrup/tpv210-2d} and
+{\tt dynamic/scecdynrup/tpv210} directories of the benchmark repository.
 
 Figure~\ref{fig:tpv13:geometry}
 show the geometry of the benchmark and the size of the domain
@@ -1727,7 +1728,7 @@ rupture propagation.
   from \url{http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgf/}). Computing
   resources for the parallel scalability benchmarks were provided by
   the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of
-  Texas at Austin (http://www.tacc.utexas.edu).
+  Texas at Austin (\url{http://www.tacc.utexas.edu}).
 \end{acknowledgments}
 
 
diff -r 443f4b2a5a50 -r 1da815add411 references.bib
--- a/references.bib	Thu Feb 07 09:12:09 2013 -0800
+++ b/references.bib	Thu Feb 07 12:16:04 2013 -0800
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@
                   Sladen, A. and Herbert, H. and Prawirodirdjo, L. and
                   Bock, Y. and Galetzka, J.},
   title = 	 {Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great {Mw} 9.15
-                  {Sumatra}–{Andaman} Earthquake of 2004},
+                  {Sumatra-Andaman} Earthquake of 2004},
   journal = 	 BSSA,
   year = 	 {2007},
   volume = 	 {97},