[CIG-SHORT] early benchmarking results

[Charles Williams]

Hi Brad,

I'm sure this has been taken into account somehow, but when comparing  
to the analytical results, we need to make sure that we don't  
actually use any values that lie on the fault, since the analytical  
solution blows up there.  If we set the analytical results to zero  
along the fault, there will still be an error.  I'm not sure how to  
deal with this problem, other than to shift all the values slightly  
off the fault.

Charles


On Aug 25, 2006, at 8:10 PM, Brad Aagaard wrote:

> Hi all:
>
> I have started tabulating the results for the Reverse Slip without
> Gravity benchmark. PyLith and GeoFEST produce nearly identical
> results, as expected. The integrated L2 errors in the elastic
> displacements for the 1000m resolution simulations are 1.6791e+05 and
> 1.6793e+05 for PyLith and GeoFEST, respectively. So... PyLith "wins"
> by a micron. The integrated L2 norm difference between the two
> elastic solutions from PyLith and GeoFEST is 1.0587e+03. At this
> point, about all we can say is that PyLith and GeoFEST agree >100
> times better with each other than they do with the analytical
> solution.
>
> Next steps: Comparing the displacements and velocities for the
> viscoelastic relaxation, examining (plotting) the local error, and
> calculating the errors for the 500m resolution simulations.
>
> Brad
> _______________________________________________
> CIG-SHORT mailing list
> CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org
> http://geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short
>

Charles A. Williams
Dept. of Earth & Environmental Sciences
Science Center, 2C01B
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY  12180
Phone:    (518) 276-3369
FAX:        (518) 276-2012
e-mail:    willic3 at rpi.edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://geodynamics.org/pipermail/cig-short/attachments/20060828/7ba1ca5b/attachment.htm