Goals
- Test techniques and implementation methods for non-planar faults (use of local vs. global coordinate systems, etc.)
- Investigate the grid resolution required to properly resolve non-planar faults.
- Test ability of various codes to model non-planar faults
- Test implimentation of boundary conditions in terms of Cartesian and Polar coordinates.
- Code comparison
Detailed Description
- Model size: Thickness = 40 km; 10 km ≤ r < 200 km; 0 ≤ θ ≤ π/2
- Elastic material properties: Poisson solid, G = 30 GPa
- Density and Gravity: None
- Boundary conditions:
Bottom pinned
x-displacement pinned at y = 0 (i.e., θ = 0)
y-displacement pinned at x = 0 (i.e., θ = π/2)
- Coarse mesh node spacing: dr = dz = 2 km; dθ = 2 degrees
- Fault specifications:
Type: Vertical strike-slip
Location: r = 100 km; -16 km ≤ z ≤ 0 km
Slip distribution: 1 m of uniform left lateral slip from -12 km ≤ z ≤ 0 km with a linear taper to 0 slip at fault tip (z = -16 km)
Requested Output and Results
Mesh Variations: As memory, time, and patience allow, run models at 1/2, 1/4, and 1/8, etc. the original coarse mesh spacing, investigate variable mesh spacing, and/or employ a variety of element types.
For All Benchmark Variations:
- Stresses and displacements along a line running radially at θ = 45 degrees, and lines running with constant r = 95, 99, 101, and 105 km, at depths of 0, 12, 16, 17 and 21 below the surface, all results at times of 0, 1, 5 and 10 years.
- CPU time, wallclock time, memory usage info, compiler info, and platform info
Truth
The 'best' answer will be derived via mesh refinement. There will also be a solution generated using Okada point sources in an infinite halfspace.
Additional Notes
None
