[CIG-SHORT] open_free_surface

[Birendra jha]

Thanks! Yes, I realized it soon after I sent my email because I opened Step20.cfg which has open_free_surface=False
The manual (page 156) has it as "True" so I was little confused.

Thanks
Birendra

--- On Tue, 11/20/12, Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov> wrote:

> From: Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov>
> Subject: Re: open_free_surface
> To: "Birendra jha" <bjha7333 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: cig-short at geodynamics.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 3:43 AM
> Birendra,
> 
> The open_free_surface parameter controls whether the
> traction 
> perturbation is applied when the fault opens. For a surface
> with sliding 
> friction, we would expect zero tractions (a free surface)
> when the fault 
> opens, so that any initial tractions should not be applied.
> However, 
> when simulating something like a dike where the initial
> tractions 
> represent fluid pressures that cause fault opening, then we
> want the 
> initial tractions to continue to be applied when the fault
> opens.
> 
> The default value is true, because in most cases we are
> simulating 
> sliding friction.
> 
> Regards,
> Brad
> 
> 
> On 11/19/2012 02:05 PM, Birendra jha wrote:
> > Dear developers,
> >
> > I am slightly confused by the open_free_surface
> parameter. I thought this is supposed to allow fault-opening
> even if the normal traction on the fault is non-zero. But in
> FaultCohesiveDyn.cc we have:
> >
> >   if (slipNormal < _zeroTolerance ||
> !_openFreeSurf) {
> >        // if no opening or flag
> indicates to still impose initial
> >        // tractions when fault is
> open.
> >
> > Should it be "_openFreeSurf" instead of
> "!_openFreeSurf"?
> > Also, the default value for this parameter is "true"
> (in the constructor), correct?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Birendra
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 11/19/12, Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov>
> >> Subject: Re: [CIG-SHORT] VTK Stress Output
> >> To: cig-short at geodynamics.org
> >> Date: Monday, November 19, 2012, 9:56 PM
> >> Bobby,
> >>
> >> I verified that there is no difference in VTK
> output for the
> >> stresses in
> >> 2-D between v1.7 and v1.8. We do list the stress
> tensor as a
> >> vector in
> >> the VTK file because we provide three components;
> ParaView
> >> interprets
> >> the components as x (stress_xx), y (stress_yy), and
> z
> >> (stress_xy).
> >>
> >> When using HDF5/Xdmf output we explicitly split
> the
> >> components into
> >> stress_xx, stress_yy, and stress_xy in the Xdmf
> file. In the
> >> HDF5 file
> >> we have the three components in the same dataset.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Brad
> >>
> >> On 11/19/12 7:31 AM, BOK10 at pitt.edu
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I'm running a simulation and looking for the
> VTK stress
> >> output. Before I
> >>> updated I would get Stress_xx, Stress_yy, and
> >> Stress_xy. But now I only
> >>> get stress_x, stress_y, and stress_z. How can I
> get the
> >> output to have xx,
> >>> yy, and xy?
> >>>
> >>> Bobby
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> CIG-SHORT mailing list
> >>> CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org
> >>> http://geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CIG-SHORT mailing list
> >> CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org
> >> http://geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short
> >>
> >
> 
>