[CIG-SHORT] Question about normal slip of points along the fault
Brad Aagaard
baagaard at usgs.gov
Wed Aug 23 11:56:47 PDT 2017
Surendra is correct that the explicit solver uses a lumped mass matrix
and the PETSC solvers are not used. I will look at the parameter file
shortly.
Brad
On 08/22/2017 11:05 PM, Surendra Nadh Somala wrote:
> I doubt if lumped mass explicit formulations need any PETSc settings!
> -SS
>
> ___________
> *Surendra Nadh Somala*
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Civil Engineering (Block-E, 208)
> Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Hyderabad
> Kandi, Sangareddy
> Telangana, India - 502285
> Phone : +91 (0)40 2301-8457
> http://civil.iith.ac.in/surendra/
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Charles Williams <willic3 at gmail.com
> <mailto:willic3 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Teng,
>
> If you’re sure there aren’t any PETSc settings in pylithapp.cfg, you
> definitely need to include a number of settings. I can’t think of a
> good example to point you to, but have a look in the manual. You
> might also get some ideas from the friction examples in
> examples/3d/hex8.
>
> Cheers,
> Charles
>
>
>> On 23/08/2017, at 4:46 PM, Li, Teng <tengli2 at illinois.edu
>> <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Charles,
>>
>> This is the only line in the PETSc settings. It seems that I need
>> to add more arguments in PETSc settings. I am wondering whether I
>> can just use the default value?
>>
>> 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 11:24 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
>>
>> Hi Teng,
>>
>> I don’t see any PETSc settings in here other than log_summary.
>> Where are all your solver/convergence settings?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Charles
>>
>>
>>> On 23/08/2017, at 4:17 PM, Li, Teng <tengli2 at illinois.edu
>>> <mailto:tengli2 at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Charles,
>>>
>>> Please see the attached .cfg 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 Charles
>>> Williams [willic3 at gmail.com <mailto:willic3 at gmail.com>]
>>> *Sent:*Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:12 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> <mailto: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>> 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>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <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/**I* *Email: **C.Williams at gns.cri.nz
>>>>>> <mailto:C.Williams 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/**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/**I**Email: **C.Williams at gns.cri.nz*
>>> <mailto:your.email at gns.cri.nz>
>>>
>>> <secondary_fault.cfg>_______________________________________________
>>> 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/**I**Email: **C.Williams 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>
>
> *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/**I**Email: **C.Williams 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>
>
>
More information about the CIG-SHORT
mailing list