1 / 44

Further Developments of the Runge-Kutta Time Integration Scheme

Further Developments of the Runge-Kutta Time Integration Scheme Investigation of Convergence (task 5). Gabriella Ceci, Pier Luigi Vitagliano g.ceci@cira.it , p.vitagliano@cira.it. OUTLINE. OBJECTIVES AND MOTIVATIONS WORK PLAN TEST CASES DESCRIPTION

corine
Download Presentation

Further Developments of the Runge-Kutta Time Integration Scheme

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Further Developments of the Runge-Kutta Time Integration Scheme Investigation of Convergence (task 5) Gabriella Ceci, Pier Luigi Vitagliano g.ceci@cira.it, p.vitagliano@cira.it COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  2. OUTLINE • OBJECTIVES AND MOTIVATIONS • WORK PLAN • TEST CASES DESCRIPTION • NEW RESULTS 2D: CONSTANT TIME STEP, NON-TVD RK3 • 3D TEST CASE: effect of different spatial scheme (3th vs 5th order) • 3D HYDROSTATIC AND NON HYDROSTATIC MOUNTAIN FLOW • EFFECT OF MOISTURE ON MOUNTAIN FLOW • CONCLUSIONS COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  3. OBJECTIVES AND MOTIVATIONS OBJECTIVES • TEST OF 3 STAGES RUNGE KUTTA TVD SCHEME WITH 5th ORDER UPWIND ADVECTION • TEST OF NEW DYNAMICS with P' and T' • MOTIVATIONS • ALLOWS LARGER TIME STEPS • MORE ACCURATE • FASTER • CONVERGENCE PROPERTIES IN PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS UNKNOWN COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  4. WORK PLAN TEST CASES: 2D MOUNTAIN FLOWS WITHOUT PHYSICS 3D MOUNTAIN FLOWS WITHOUT PHYSICS 3D MOUNTAIN FLOW WITH MOISTURE COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  5. TEST CASES DESCRIPTION • Gaussian ridge h(r)=H 2-(r/a)2 • HYDROSTATIC FLOW (aN/U) >> 1 • NON HYDROSTATIC FLOW (aN/U) ~ 1 • NON LINEAR FLOW (HN/U) ~ 1 r = (x2 + y2)½ • Basic flow velocity U = 10 m/s • Brunt Väisälä frequency N = 0.01 s-1 • Rayleigh damping layer above 11 km • Vertical resolution 100 m (195 levels) COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  6. TEST CASES DESCRIPTION HYDROSTATIC LINEAR / NON LINEAR a = 10 km H = 10 m / 500 m Time = 60 h / 100 h dt = 2.5” Domain size 500x19.5 km2 Horizontal resolution = 4km, 2km, 1km, 500m, 250m, 125m NON HYDROSTATIC a = 500 m H = 10 m Time = 10 h dt = 2.5” Domain size 250x19.5 km2 Horizontal resolution = 1km, 500m, 250m, 125m, 62.5m COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  7. Comparison with analytical solutionlinear hydrostatic Left: solution with a damping layer of 85 levels and nRΔt=200. Right: analytical solution following Klemp-Lilly (J.Atmos.Sc. 35, 78-107, 1978) COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  8. ISSUES WITH LATERAL BOUNDARIES Disturbances at the side boundaries due to p’ T’ (left), removed by initialization of reference atmosphere p0 T0 with constant Brunt-Väisälä frequency N (right) COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  9. ISSUES WITH UPPER DAMPING LAYER Fine tuning of damping layer (both thichness and amount of damping) required to minimize wave reflection and distorsion. COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  10. NON HYDROSTATIC FLOW: w AND u COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  11. NON LINEAR HYDROSTATIC FLOW VERY DEEP RAYLEIGH DAMPING LAYER IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN REASONABLE SOLUTIONS FOR HIGHER RIDGES (LEFT: 1.35 WAVE LENGTHS, RIGHT: 2 W.L.) COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  12. TIME CONVERGENCE STEADY FLOW IS NOT OBTAINED WHEN THE RIDGE IS HIGHER THAN 500m COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  13. POST PROCESSING • DRAG COEFFICIENT CD=∑ p'(x,0) dh/dx ∆x / PR • MOMENTUM FLUX Mx(z)=- ρ(z) ∑ u(x,z) w(x,z) ∆x / PR • KINETIC ENERGY = (u'(x,z)2 + w'(x,z)2) • ABSOLUTE ERROR |F - Fexact| • RELATIVE ERROR |F - Ffinest mesh| • ERROR NORM L0 max |F - Ffinest mesh| • ERROR NORM L1 1/N ∑ |F - Ffinest mesh| • ERROR NORM L2 [1/N ∑ (F - Ffinest mesh)2]½ COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  14. OLD RESULTS: CD COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  15. OLD RESULTS: KINETIC ENERGY COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  16. OLD RESULTS: MOMENTUM FLUX Smaller DX COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  17. NEW RESULTS • ALL TEST CASES RUNNED AGAIN WITH CONSTANT TIME STEP = 2.5” • TEST CASES REPEATED WITH NON-TVD 3 STAGES RUNGE KUTTA COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  18. CONVERGENCE OF VERTICAL VELOCITY w COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  19. CONVERGENCE OF VERTICAL VELOCITY w COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  20. CONVERGENCE OF VERTICAL VELOCITY w COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  21. CONVERGENCE OF KINETIC ENERGY COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  22. CONVERGENCE OF KINETIC ENERGY COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  23. CONVERGENCE OF KINETIC ENERGY COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  24. CONVERGENCE OF WAVE DRAG COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  25. CONVERGENCE OF WAVE DRAG COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  26. CONVERGENCE OF WAVE DRAG COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  27. COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  28. CONVERGENCE: CONCLUSIONS AFTER 2D TESTS • 2nd ORDER SPATIAL CONVENGENCE (FAST WAVE SCHEME DOMINATES) • TVD AND NON-TVD 3 STAGES RUNGE KUTTA SHOW SIMILAR BEHAVIOUR • TIME STEP HAS MINOR EFFECT (IF ANY) ON SPATIAL CONVERGENCE • IMPORTANT ISSUES WITH UPPER BOUNDARY CONDITION • ISSUE IN LATERAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR p’ T’ • DIFFICOULT TO COMPARE WITH ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS, DUE TO B.C. COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  29. 3D TEST CASES Gaussian mountain, hydrostatic flow, dry atmosphere effect of different spatial scheme (3th vs 5th order) and grid size Domain size: 256x128x19.5 km3 195 vertical levels Rayleigh damping above 11 km Basic flow velocity U = 10 m/s Brunt Väisälä frequency N = 0.01 s-1 COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  30. 3D TEST CASES COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  31. 3D TEST CASES COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  32. 3D TEST CASES COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  33. 3D TEST CASES: HYDROSTATIC FLOW Gaussian mountain height=750 m size=10 km Horizontal resolution 16 km 3th order upwind 5th order upwind COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  34. 3D TEST CASES: HYDROSTATIC FLOW Gaussian mountain height=750 m size=10 km Horizontal resolution 8 km 3th order upwind 5th order upwind COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  35. 3D TEST CASES: HYDROSTATIC FLOW Gaussian mountain height=750 m size=10 km Horizontal resolution 4 km 3th order upwind 5th order upwind COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  36. 3D TEST CASES: HYDROSTATIC FLOW Gaussian mountain height=750 m size=10 km Horizontal resolution 16 km 3th order upwind 5th order upwind COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  37. 3D TEST CASES: HYDROSTATIC FLOW Gaussian mountain height=750 m size=10 km Horizontal resolution 8 km 3th order upwind 5th order upwind COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  38. 3D TEST CASES: HYDROSTATIC FLOW Gaussian mountain height=750 m size=10 km Horizontal resolution 4 km 3th order upwind 5th order upwind COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  39. 3D TEST CASES • SOME CONCLUSIONS • SMALLER INFLUENCE OF DAMPING LAYER ON 3D MOUNTAIN WAVES AND DRAG • OPTIMAL DAMPING PARAMETER Dt*nrdtau INCREASES TO 1000 s • WITH POOR RESOLUTION DIFFERENT SCHEME CAN GIVE DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS • WITH POOR RESOLUTION HIGHER ORDER UPWIND CAN IMPROVE RESULTS COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  40. 3D TEST CASES: NON HYDROSTATIC FLOW Convergence analysis COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  41. 3D TEST CASES: NON HYDROSTATIC FLOW Convergence analysis Smaller DX 2 D 3 D COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  42. 3D TEST CASES: NON HYDROSTATIC FLOW Convergence analysis 2 D 3 D COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  43. 3D TEST CASES: EFFECT OF MOISTURE SIMILAR TEST CASE IN 2D SHOWN BY Durran-Klemp (J.Atmos.Sc. 39, 2490-2506, 1982) WITH 3D SIMULATION LESS INFLUENCE OF BOUNDARIES • STEADY SOLUTION NOT ACHIEVED EVEN ON H=10m • TEST ON H=300m RH=100% SHOWS INSTABLE LOWER LAYER COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

  44. 3D TEST CASES: EFFECT OF MOISTURE • FURTHER WORK (?) • MOUNTAIN HEIGHT • TIME STEP • SPATIAL STEP • B.C. COSMO WG 2 - Runge Kutta

More Related