CyberShake volume rotation - Revision history

Scottcal: /* Sponge zone tests */

2020-02-10T20:18:02Z

Sponge zone tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 10 February 2020
Line 273:		Line 273:

	Here's a comparison of the RotD spectral plots for the 30 deg rotation, for various sponge values:		Here's a comparison of the RotD spectral plots for the 30 deg rotation, for various sponge values:


	{\|		{\|
	\| [[File:sponge_zone_30deg_rotd_s125_r234_v34_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]		\| [[File:sponge_zone_30deg_rotd_s125_r234_v34_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]
	\|}		\|}

			Since there is no clear winner, we have decided to move ahead with '''50 points''' as a balance between reducing reflections and losing energy.

2020-02-10T20:17:03Z

Boundary effects

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 10 February 2020
Line 248:		Line 248:
	To test the theory that the difference we see in the Garlock seismograms is due to boundary effects, we recalculated results for the above Garlock event, but with volumes which extended an extra ~100km to the northeast, moving the fault more than 140 km away from a boundary.		To test the theory that the difference we see in the Garlock seismograms is due to boundary effects, we recalculated results for the above Garlock event, but with volumes which extended an extra ~100km to the northeast, moving the fault more than 140 km away from a boundary.

	~~<comparison>~~		The two seismograms with different angles show much better agreement when not near the boundary.

			{\|
			\| [[File:s125_r234_v34_ext_vol_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]
			\|}

	When compared to the seismograms near the boundary with the normal-sized volume, these new results are different from both:		When compared to the seismograms near the boundary with the normal-sized volume, these new results are different from both:

2020-02-10T17:02:56Z

Boundary effects

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 10 February 2020
Line 248:		Line 248:
	To test the theory that the difference we see in the Garlock seismograms is due to boundary effects, we recalculated results for the above Garlock event, but with volumes which extended an extra ~100km to the northeast, moving the fault more than 140 km away from a boundary.		To test the theory that the difference we see in the Garlock seismograms is due to boundary effects, we recalculated results for the above Garlock event, but with volumes which extended an extra ~100km to the northeast, moving the fault more than 140 km away from a boundary.

	~~This brings the seismograms into very close agreement:~~		<comparison>

	{\|
	~~\| [[File:s125_r234_v34_largevols.png\|thumb\|600px]]~~
	\|}

	When compared to the seismograms near the boundary with the normal-sized volume, these new results are different from both:		When compared to the seismograms near the boundary with the normal-sized volume, these new results are different from both:

2020-02-10T16:32:51Z

Sponge zone tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 10 February 2020
Line 272:		Line 272:
	\|}		\|}

	Here's a comparison of the RotD spectral plots for various sponge values:		Here's a comparison of the RotD spectral plots for the 30 deg rotation, for various sponge values:

2020-02-10T16:25:01Z

Sponge zone tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:25, 10 February 2020
Line 268:		Line 268:
	{\|		{\|
	\| [[File:sponge_zone_30deg_s125_r234_v34_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]		\| [[File:sponge_zone_30deg_s125_r234_v34_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]
			\|-
			\| [[File:sponge_zone_s125_r234_v34_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]
	\|}		\|}

2020-02-10T16:19:31Z

Sponge zone tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 10 February 2020
Line 264:		Line 264:
	We realized the sponge zone widths were only 20 points, so we tried rerunning with different values.		We realized the sponge zone widths were only 20 points, so we tried rerunning with different values.

	With 50 points, we still see differences in the seismograms from the ones 100km+ from the volume boundary:		With 50 and 80 points, we still see differences in the seismograms from the ones 100km+ from the volume boundary:

	{\|		{\|
	\| [[File:~~sponge_zone_50_s125_r234_v34_compare~~.png\|thumb\|600px]]		\| [[File:sponge_zone_30deg_s125_r234_v34_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]
			\|}

			Here's a comparison of the RotD spectral plots for various sponge values:


			{\|
			\| [[File:sponge_zone_30deg_rotd_s125_r234_v34_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]
	\|}		\|}

2020-02-05T22:57:33Z

Sponge zone tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 5 February 2020
Line 264:		Line 264:
	We realized the sponge zone widths were only 20 points, so we tried rerunning with different values.		We realized the sponge zone widths were only 20 points, so we tried rerunning with different values.

	With 50 points, the seismograms ~~are a bit closer but still differ~~ from the ones ~~100~~+km from the volume boundary		With 50 points, we still see differences in the seismograms from the ones 100km+ from the volume boundary:

	{\|		{\|
	\| [[File:~~s125_r234_v34_vol_rot_compare~~.png\|thumb\|600px]]		\| [[File:sponge_zone_50_s125_r234_v34_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]
	\|}		\|}

2020-02-05T22:56:31Z

ERF 36 Mojave 1D test

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 5 February 2020
Line 255:		Line 255:

	When compared to the seismograms near the boundary with the normal-sized volume, these new results are different from both:		When compared to the seismograms near the boundary with the normal-sized volume, these new results are different from both:

			{\|
			\| [[File:s125_r234_v34_vol_rot_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]
			\|}

			=== Sponge zone tests ===

			We realized the sponge zone widths were only 20 points, so we tried rerunning with different values.

			With 50 points, the seismograms are a bit closer but still differ from the ones 100+km from the volume boundary

	{\|		{\|
	\| [[File:s125_r234_v34_vol_rot_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]		\| [[File:s125_r234_v34_vol_rot_compare.png\|thumb\|600px]]
	\|}		\|}

2020-02-03T18:45:16Z

Boundary effects

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 3 February 2020
Line 246:		Line 246:
	=== Boundary effects ===		=== Boundary effects ===

	To test the theory that the difference we see in the Garlock seismograms is due to boundary effects, we recalculated results for the above Garlock event, but with volumes which extended an extra ~100km to the northeast, moving the fault more than ~~100~~ km away from a boundary.		To test the theory that the difference we see in the Garlock seismograms is due to boundary effects, we recalculated results for the above Garlock event, but with volumes which extended an extra ~100km to the northeast, moving the fault more than 140 km away from a boundary.

	This brings the seismograms into very close agreement:		This brings the seismograms into very close agreement:

2020-02-03T18:44:33Z

Boundary conditions

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 3 February 2020
Line 244:		Line 244:
	\|}		\|}

	=== Boundary ~~conditions~~ ===		=== Boundary effects ===

	To test the theory that the difference we see in the Garlock seismograms is due to boundary effects, we recalculated results for the above Garlock event, but with volumes which extended an extra ~100km to the northeast, moving the fault more than 100 km away from a boundary.		To test the theory that the difference we see in the Garlock seismograms is due to boundary effects, we recalculated results for the above Garlock event, but with volumes which extended an extra ~100km to the northeast, moving the fault more than 100 km away from a boundary.