# [cig-commits] commit: A little more work on text.

Mercurial hg at geodynamics.org
Wed Apr 11 18:25:38 PDT 2012

changeset:   99:bb3fc212dd01
user:        Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov>
date:        Tue Apr 10 17:52:37 2012 -0700
files:       faultRup.tex
description:
A little more work on text.

diff -r facba978ebcd -r bb3fc212dd01 faultRup.tex
--- a/faultRup.tex	Tue Apr 10 15:54:10 2012 -0700
+++ b/faultRup.tex	Tue Apr 10 17:52:37 2012 -0700
@@ -1131,15 +1131,20 @@ avoid performing a line search in comput

We compare the relative performance of the various preconditioners
discussed in section~\ref{sec:solver:quasistatic} for quasi-static
-problems using a simulation with three vertical, strike-slip
-faults. Figure~\ref{fig:solvertest:geometry} shows the domain spanning
-a region 72 km by 72 km by 36 km. We apply Dirichlet boundary
-conditions on two lateral sides with 2.0 m of shearing motion and no
-motion perpendicular to the boundary. We also apply a Dirichlet
-boundary condition to the bottom of the domain to prevent vertical
-motion. We prescribe uniform slip on the three faults with zero slip
-at the edges. All three faults have a width of 12 km; the center fault
-is ?? km long, whereas the other two faults are ?? km long.
+problems using a static simulation with three vertical, strike-slip
+faults. Using multiple, intersecting faults provides a more complex
+test of the preconditioner compared with a single fault due to the
+loose coupling in tractions (Lagrange multipliers) among the faults.
+Figure~\ref{fig:solvertest:geometry} shows the geometry of the faults
+embedded in the domain and Table~\ref{tab:solvertest:parameters} gives the
+parameters used in the simulation. We apply Dirichlet boundary conditions on two
+lateral sides with 2.0 m of shearing motion and no motion
+perpendicular to the boundary. We also apply a Dirichlet boundary
+condition to the bottom of the domain to prevent vertical motion. We
+prescribe uniform slip on the three faults with zero slip along the
+buried edges.
+
+

\begin{itemize}
\item Description (geometry, BC, fault slip)
@@ -1391,6 +1396,39 @@ MGK acknowledges partial support from NS
\end{table*}

\begin{table}
+\caption{Performance Benchmark Parameters\tablenotemark{a}}
+\label{tab:solvertest:parameters}
+\centering
+\begin{tabular}{llc}
+  \hline
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Parameter} & Value \\
+  \hline
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Domain} & \\
+    & Length & 72 km \\
+    & Width & 72 km \\
+    & Height & 36 km \\
+    & Angle between faults & 60 $\deg$ \\
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Elastic properties} & \\
+    & Vp & 5.774 km/s \\
+    & Vs & 3.333 km/s \\
+    & density ($\rho$) & 2700. kg/m$^3$ \\
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{Middle fault} & \\
+    & Length & 39.19 km \\
+    & Width & 12 km \\
+    & Slip & 1.0 m RL \\
+  \multicolumn{2}{l}{End faults} & \\
+    & Length & 43.74 km \\
+    & Width & 12 km \\
+    & Slip & 0.5 m LL \\
+  \hline
+\end{tabular}
+\tablenotetext{a}{Simulation parameters for the performance benchmark
+  with three faults embedded in a volume domain as shown in
+  Figure~\ref{fig:solvertest:geometry}. We prescribe right-lateral
+  (RL) slip on the middle fault and left-lateral (LL) slip on the end faults.}
+\end{table}
+
+\begin{table}
\caption{\brad{REDO}Performance of Krylov Solvers on a problem with 3 faults. Problem 1 (P1) has 25000 unknowns and 645
constraints, whereas the larger Problem 2 (P2) has 191,000 unknowns and 2241 constraints. The relative
solver tolerance is $10^{-8}$, and the preconditioners used were Additive Schwarz Method (ASM), FieldSplit (FS),