Our first combined rupture set example had direct intersection (distance=0) between Puysegur (subduction) and Alpine (Crustal) faults. It also has very high compute costs. The proposal here is to allow us to examine the impact that distance has on the compute costs and to help us understand the code algorithms involved.
The Hikurangi fault has depth that changes from about 2.5 km east coast to > 30km on the west cost . We can draw a line from say Riversdale (east) to Otaki (west coast) and even further west to find examples where the crustal faults, which are typically oriented north/south, cross the subduction surface at various vertical distances: from -5 to ~ 20km . So let's select several crustal faults (e.g Ohariu, Masterton, Riversdale) and to compare their connectivity and compute costs, relating primarily to distance.
Consider too what other factors might play a role (Dip, M, ??)
done when:
[ ] select the faults
[ ] establish some comparison criteria (compute time, connections, etc (maybe some code instrumentation will be useful too)
chrisbc
commented
7 months ago
Our first combined rupture set example had direct intersection (distance=0) between Puysegur (subduction) and Alpine (Crustal) faults. It also has very high compute costs. The proposal here is to allow us to examine the impact that distance has on the compute costs and to help us understand the code algorithms involved.
The Hikurangi fault has depth that changes from about 2.5 km east coast to > 30km on the west cost . We can draw a line from say Riversdale (east) to Otaki (west coast) and even further west to find examples where the crustal faults, which are typically oriented north/south, cross the subduction surface at various vertical distances: from -5 to ~ 20km . So let's select several crustal faults (e.g Ohariu, Masterton, Riversdale) and to compare their connectivity and compute costs, relating primarily to distance.
Consider too what other factors might play a role (Dip, M, ??)
done when: