[CIG-SHORT] SCEC Banchmarks

[Brad Aagaard]

Huihui,

To assess convergence, you should be looking at both the time step and 
discretization size and whatever fields you are interested in. The 
solution is generally more sensitive to discretization size than time 
step, so I would first assess convergence by varying the discretization 
size.

It is also important to note that not all of the SCEC benchmarks are 
well formulated so that the problem descriptions are independent of time 
step and discretization size. Additionally, the ruptures in some cases 
(including TPV205) abruptly hit the edges of the fault rather than 
gradually dying out. As a result, it takes a long time for the slip rate 
to decrease to zero.

Regards,
Brad



On 12/03/2014 01:30 AM, 翁辉辉 wrote:
>
>
> Dear Brad,
>
>
> I am trying to run some SCEC Dynamic Rupture Benchmarks cases. I use different time_steps(0.01s,0.05s,0.001s,0.0005s,all are smaller than the stable time_step) to run a same model(tpv205-2d,tri3_100m_gradient.cfg). I find that the coseismic slip of the model with different time_steps are different(show as the attached figure).All these cases are run by pylith 2-0-0. And the rupture velocity seems to decrease as the time_step decreases. How to choose the appropriate time_step?
>
> ps. that model is in the CIG SVN Repository https://geodynamics.org/svn/cig/short/3D/PyLith/benchmarks
>
> regard,
>
> Huihui
>