[CIG-SHORT] Question about normal slip of points along the fault
Charles Williams
willic3 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 22 21:12:38 PDT 2017
Hi Teng,
You had sent it before, I just forgot. Also, could you send the .cfg files with your PETSc settings?
Cheers,
Charles
> On 23/08/2017, at 3:33 PM, Li, Teng <tengli2 at illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Charles,
>
> Thanks!
>
> I remember I sent the .json file in a previous email. Maybe there is something wrong. Please find the attachment for the .json file.
>
> And actually, in the same position, I find both shear traction and normal traction become zero after time step 69. If there is no normal slip, can I assume there is no damage in this region?
>
> Best,
> Teng
>
> Teng Li
>
> Master Candidate in Structures
>
> Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
>
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
> 205 North Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL. 61801
>
> Phone:(217)8196210, Email: tengli2 at illinois.edu <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>
>
>
> From: CIG-SHORT [cig-short-bounces at geodynamics.org <mailto:cig-short-bounces at geodynamics.org>] on behalf of Charles Williams [willic3 at gmail.com <mailto:willic3 at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:14 PM
> To: cig-short at geodynamics.org <mailto:cig-short at geodynamics.org>
> Subject: Re: [CIG-SHORT] Question about normal slip of points along the fault
>
> Dear Teng,
>
> You are correct that the normal slip doesn’t seem to show up in Paraview. I believe this must be a rounding issue. When I look at the HDF5 file, it appears that opening slip with absolute values greater than 1.0e-5 occurs for time steps 69 and greater, on nodes 1804-1807. These nodes are not quite at the center of your mesh (slightly to the right), and we have the following:
>
> >>> coords[1804:1808,:]
> array([[ 0. , 2575.51243781],
> [ 0. , 2563.00995025],
> [ 0. , 2550.50746269],
> [ 0. , 2538.00497512]])
> >>> slip[68:70,1804:1808,:]
> array([[[ 6.89918509e-01, 5.03786406e-04],
> [ 6.84512853e-01, 2.90598425e-03],
> [ 6.76231093e-01, 4.27721576e-03],
> [ 6.65871813e-01, 1.48424451e-03]],
>
> [[ 8.21537711e-01, -6.18814173e-03],
> [ 8.20121053e-01, -6.61874706e-03],
> [ 8.16053970e-01, -5.52545028e-03],
> [ 8.08475567e-01, -5.13870352e-03]]])
>
> slip[106:110,1804:1808,:]
> array([[[ 3.22609558, -0.00405558],
> [ 3.2170178 , -0.00427933],
> [ 3.2045508 , -0.00417583],
> [ 3.1879853 , -0.00531141]],
>
> [[ 3.27816325, -0.0040641 ],
> [ 3.26907165, -0.00429604],
> [ 3.25659285, -0.00419845],
> [ 3.24001916, -0.00533315]],
>
> [[ 3.33065722, -0.00405906],
> [ 3.32156487, -0.00428167],
> [ 3.30908228, -0.00417447],
> [ 3.29249541, -0.00530886]],
>
> [[ 3.38360076, -0.00405536],
> [ 3.37449161, -0.00428148],
> [ 3.3619885 , -0.00418184],
> [ 3.34538406, -0.0053216 ]]])
>
> I’ve just printed out a few time steps as an example. It appears that the ratio of normal slip to shear slip decreases with time. I’m actually not sure what a reasonable amount of normal slip would be — maybe Brad knows. Can you send the .json file that Brad mentioned? That will tell us the settings you’ve been using.
>
> Cheers,
> Charles
>
>
>> On 23/08/2017, at 2:33 PM, Li, Teng <tengli2 at illinois.edu <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please find the attachments. The first file is xmf file which can be viewed in Paraview. However, I don't see any slip y value in Paraview in all time steps. And I use Matlab to postprocess fault.h5 file and obtain the results. Please find the two pictures for details. As we can see, four points have normal slip.
>>
>> Here are the Matlab code to find the slip:
>>
>> hinfoh=hdf5info('/Desktop/fault.h5');
>> coords=hdf5read(hinfoh.GroupHierarchy.Groups(1).Datasets(1));
>> slip=hdf5read(hinfoh.GroupHierarchy.Groups(3).Datasets(1));
>>
>> After opening the variable slip, I find normal slip in columns 1805 - 1808 after time step 69. I am wondering why we have value here in fault.h5 file and we can not see the normal slip in fault.xmf file in Paraview? And I used pylith --nodes=2 to run the .cfg file in my personal Macbook. I am wondering whether this can cause some wrong datas in the output fault.h5 file?
>>
>> Best,
>> Teng
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Teng Li
>>
>> Master Candidate in Structures
>>
>> Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
>>
>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>
>> 205 North Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL. 61801
>>
>> Phone:(217)8196210, Email: tengli2 at illinois.edu <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: CIG-SHORT [cig-short-bounces at geodynamics.org <mailto:cig-short-bounces at geodynamics.org>] on behalf of Brad Aagaard [baagaard at usgs.gov <mailto:baagaard at usgs.gov>]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 3:22 PM
>> To: cig-short at geodynamics.org <mailto:cig-short at geodynamics.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CIG-SHORT] Question about normal slip of points along the fault
>>
>> Teng,
>>
>> Is this a quasi-static simulation? If so, is the solution converging at
>> every time step?
>>
>> If you are using PyLith v2.2.0, please send the JSON parameters file
>> that is generated during the run.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brad
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/17 12:52 PM, Li, Teng wrote:
>>> Dear Charles,
>>>
>>> We have a 2d model in my problem. And in this region, where I have
>>> normal slip, both normal traction and shear traction become zero. In the
>>> beginning, all the points in this region have positive normal slip, and
>>> the maximum slip is 0.004. Then, the points have negative normal slip,
>>> the values are between -0.006 to -0.003.
>>>
>>> And I will use Paraview to see the possible normal slip of the points
>>> along the fault.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Teng
>>>
>>> Teng Li
>>>
>>> Master Candidate in Structures
>>>
>>> Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
>>>
>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>
>>> 205 North Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL. 61801
>>>
>>> Phone:(217)8196210, Email: tengli2 at illinois.edu <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* CIG-SHORT [cig-short-bounces at geodynamics.org <mailto:cig-short-bounces at geodynamics.org>] on behalf of
>>> Charles Williams [willic3 at gmail.com <mailto:willic3 at gmail.com>]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 11:04 PM
>>> *To:* cig-short at geodynamics.org <mailto:cig-short at geodynamics.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CIG-SHORT] Question about normal slip of points along
>>> the fault
>>>
>>> Dear Teng,
>>>
>>> Is this a 2D or 3D problem? If it’s 2D then slip(:,2) should be the
>>> normal slip. If it’s 3D I think it should be slip(:,3) (I’m not a
>>> Matlab user, but I believe it uses 1-based indexing). If there is
>>> actually normal slip, how large is it?
>>>
>>> You should be able to look at the VTK files in Paraview. Just open the
>>> fault VTK file and view ‘slip’. Then select the component you want to view.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 22/08/2017, at 3:02 PM, Li, Teng <tengli2 at illinois.edu <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>
>>>> <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have some questions about the normal slip of the points along the
>>>> fault. Please find the attachments.
>>>>
>>>> I output the slip(:,2) in matlab to obtain the normal slip of all the
>>>> points along the fault in my model. And I use open_free_surface=False
>>>> to make sure the initial traction still exists when the fault opens.
>>>> However, I find certain points have normal slip. In some time steps,
>>>> they have positive normal slip, while in some other times, they have
>>>> negative normal slip. I am wondering why they have the normal slip in
>>>> 2 different directions?
>>>>
>>>> And the second picture is the slip convention in pylith-2.2.0 manual.
>>>> It is in the page 119/268. I think the meaning is that the positive
>>>> normal slip is the fault opening direction.
>>>>
>>>> And in the third picture, I see negative values of fault opening
>>>> implys penetration.
>>>>
>>>> Since the penetration is never allowed, I wonder why we have both
>>>> positive and negative slip results? Is it due to the incomplete or
>>>> wrong .vtk output?
>>>>
>>>> And is there a way to see the fault opening using Paraview? I think
>>>> using Paraview to visualize those points can help me figure out the
>>>> meaning of their normal slips.
>>>>
>>>> Hope for your reply!
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Teng
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Teng Li
>>>>
>>>> Master Candidate in Structures
>>>>
>>>> Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
>>>>
>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>
>>>> 205 North Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL. 61801
>>>>
>>>> Phone:(217)8196210, Email: tengli2 at illinois.edu <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>
>>>> <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <Positive_values.png><Negative.png>_______________________________________________
>>>> CIG-SHORT mailing list
>>>> CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org <mailto:CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org> <mailto:CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org <mailto:CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org>>
>>>> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short <http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short>
>>>
>>> *Charles Williams I Geodynamic Modeler
>>> GNS Science **I** Te Pῡ Ao*
>>> 1 Fairway Drive, Avalon 5010, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand
>>> *Ph* 0064-4-570-4566 I *Mob* 0064-22-350-7326 I *Fax* 0064-4-570-4600*_
>>> _**http://www.gns.cri.nz/* <http://www.gns.cri.nz/*> *I* *Email: **C.Williams at gns.cri.nz <mailto:C.Williams at gns.cri.nz>*
>>> <mailto:your.email at gns.cri.nz <mailto:your.email at gns.cri.nz>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CIG-SHORT mailing list
>> CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org <mailto:CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org>
>> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short <http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short>
>> <fault.xmf><Normal_slip_Time_69.jpg><Normal_slip_Time_70.jpg><fault.h5>_______________________________________________
>> CIG-SHORT mailing list
>> CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org <mailto:CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org>
>> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short <http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short>
> Charles Williams I Geodynamic Modeler
> GNS Science I Te Pῡ Ao
> 1 Fairway Drive, Avalon 5010, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand
> Ph 0064-4-570-4566 I Mob 0064-22-350-7326 I Fax 0064-4-570-4600
> http://www.gns.cri.nz/ <http://www.gns.cri.nz/> I Email: C.Williams at gns.cri.nz <mailto:your.email at gns.cri.nz>
> <pylith_parameters.json>_______________________________________________
> CIG-SHORT mailing list
> CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org <mailto:CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org>
> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short <http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short>
Charles Williams I Geodynamic Modeler
GNS Science I Te Pῡ Ao
1 Fairway Drive, Avalon 5010, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand
Ph 0064-4-570-4566 I Mob 0064-22-350-7326 I Fax 0064-4-570-4600
http://www.gns.cri.nz/ <http://www.gns.cri.nz/> I Email: C.Williams at gns.cri.nz <mailto:your.email at gns.cri.nz>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geodynamics.org/pipermail/cig-short/attachments/20170823/d74ae9b7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CIG-SHORT
mailing list