CyberShake volume rotation - Revision history

Scottcal: /* Sponge zone tests */

2020-02-10T20:18:02Z

Sponge zone tests

2020-02-10T20:17:03Z

Boundary effects

2020-02-10T17:02:56Z

Boundary effects

2020-02-10T16:32:51Z

Sponge zone tests

2020-02-10T16:25:01Z

Sponge zone tests

2020-02-10T16:19:31Z

Sponge zone tests

2020-02-05T22:57:33Z

Sponge zone tests

2020-02-05T22:56:31Z

ERF 36 Mojave 1D test

2020-02-03T18:45:16Z

Boundary effects

2020-02-03T18:44:33Z

Boundary conditions

@@ Line 273: / Line 273: @@
 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]]
 |}

@@ 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.
-<comparison>
+The two seismograms with different angles show much better agreement when not near the boundary.
 When compared to the seismograms near the boundary with the normal-sized volume, these new results are different from both:

@@ 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.
-This brings the seismograms into very close agreement:
+<comparison>
 When compared to the seismograms near the boundary with the normal-sized volume, these new results are different from both:

← 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:

@@ Line 268: / Line 268: @@
 {|
 | [[File:sponge_zone_30deg_s125_r234_v34_compare.png|thumb|600px]]
 |}

@@ Line 264: / Line 264: @@
 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]]
 |}

@@ Line 255: / Line 255: @@
 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]]
 |}

@@ Line 246: / Line 246: @@
 === 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: