[CIG-SHORT] Re: strike-slip benchmark results

[Greg Lyzenga]

On Sep 8, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Brad Aagaard wrote:

> Jiangning-
>
> It looks like we will have to dive a little deeper and compare the
> boundary conditions inputs for PyLith and GeoFEST a little closer. I
> have to finish the poster right now, but maybe there will be a chance
> to look at the files at the SCEC meeting.
>
> Brad

I'm sorry I've been a bit disconnected from this discussion, having  
been very busy at school.  However I'm rather confident (and the dip- 
slip results seem to bear this out) that GeoFEST and PyLith are so  
genetically similar that given the same input, they should produce  
(almost) identical output.  If the outputs differ, it seems highly  
likely the inputs are not equivalent.  In the case of the dip-slip  
problems, I was successful in taking the existing PyLith files and  
converting over to GeoFEST.  That same procedure should work equally  
well here.  Was that how the strike slip GeoFEST file was generated,  
or was it created independently, which would open the door for  
inadvertent differences between the two to sneak in?

                                      - Greg

-------------------------------------
Gregory A. Lyzenga  <lyzenga at hmc.edu>           ***     (909) 621-8378
Dept. of Physics, Harvey Mudd College           *** fax (909) 621-8887
Claremont, CA 91711-5990
<http://www.physics.hmc.edu/faculty/Lyzenga/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://geodynamics.org/pipermail/cig-short/attachments/20060908/dfddec66/attachment.html