1 / 36

Adaptive Meshes on the Sphere: Cubed-Spheres versus Latitude-Longitude Grids

Adaptive Meshes on the Sphere: Cubed-Spheres versus Latitude-Longitude Grids. Christiane Jablonowski University of Michigan Dec/8/2006. Acknowledgments.

Download Presentation

Adaptive Meshes on the Sphere: Cubed-Spheres versus Latitude-Longitude Grids

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. Adaptive Meshes on the Sphere: Cubed-Spheres versus Latitude-Longitude Grids Christiane JablonowskiUniversity of MichiganDec/8/2006

  2. Acknowledgments • The AMR comparison is based on a joint paper with Amik St-Cyr and collaborators from NCAR, submitted to Monthly Weather Review in November 2006 • The AMR Spectral Element Model was mainly developed by Amik St-Cyr, John Dennis & Steve Thomas (NCAR) • The AMR FV model is documented inJablonowski (2004), Jablonowski et al. (2004, 2006) • Contributors to the AMR FV model areMichael Herzog (GFDL) & Joyce Penner (UM)Robert Oehmke (NCAR) & Quentin Stout (UM)Bram van Leer (UM) & Ken Powell (UM)

  3. Overview • Computational Grids on the Sphere • Adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) techniques • Why are we interested in variable resolutions / multi-scales? • Overview of two AMR shallow water models • Finite volume (FV) model • Spectral element model (SEM) • Results: Static and dynamic adaptations • 2D shallow water experiments • Conclusions and Outlook

  4. Latitude-Longitude Grid • Popular choice • Meridians converge:polar filters or/andtime steps • Orthogonal

  5. Platonic solids - Regular grid structures • Platonic solids can be enclosed in a sphere

  6. Cubed Sphere Geometry Advection of a cosine bell around the sphere (12 days)at a 45o angle Courtesy of Ram Nair (NCAR)

  7. Adaptive Mesh Refinements (AMR) Cubed-sphere grid:Model SEM Latitude-Longitude grid:Model FV

  8. SEM: Grid Points within Spectral Elements Circles: Gauss-Lobatto-Legendre (GLL) points for vectorsSquares:Gauss-Lobatto (GL) points forscalarsElements are split in case of refinements

  9. FV: Block-Structured Adaptive Mesh Refinement Strategy Self-similar blocks with 3 ghost cells in x & y direction

  10. Other AMR Grids Model ICONIcosahedral grid with nested high-resolution regionsunder development at the German WeatherService (DWD) and MPI, Hamburg Source: DWD

  11. Features of Interest in a Multi-Scale Regime Hurricane Frances Hurricane Ivan September/5/2004

  12. High Resolution: Multi-Scale Interactions 10 km resolution W. Ohfuchi, The Earth Simulator Center, Japan

  13. AMR Transport of a Slotted Cylinder Model FV

  14. Transport of a Slotted Cylinder

  15. Transport of a Slotted Cylinder

  16. Transport of a Slotted Cylinder

  17. Transport of a Slotted Cylinder

  18. Transport of a Slotted Cylinder • Slotted cylinder is reliably detected and tracked

  19. Shallow Water Equations Momentum equation in vector-invariant form Continuity equation vh horizontal velocity vector relative vorticityf Coriolis parameterK= 0.5*(u2 + v2) kinetic energyD horizontal divergence,  damping coefficienth free surface height, hs height of the orographyg gravitational acceleration

  20. Finite Volume (FV) Shallow Water Model • Developed by Lin and Rood (1996), Lin and Rood (1997) • 3D version available (Lin 2004), built upon the SW model: • hydrostatic dynamical core used for climate and weather predictions • Currently part of NCAR’s, NASA’s and GFDL’s General Circulation Models • Numerics: Finite volume approach • conservative and monotonic transport scheme • upwind biased 1D fluxes, operator splitting • van Leer second order scheme for time-averaged numerical fluxes • PPM third order scheme (piecewise parabolic method)for prognostic variables • Staggered grid (Arakawa D-grid) • Orthogonal Latitude-Longitude computational grid

  21. Spectral Element (SEM) Shallow Water Model • Documented in Thomas and Loft (2002), St-Cyr and Thomas (2005), St-Cyr et al. (2006) • 3D version available • Experimental tests within NCAR’s Climate Modeling Software Framework • Numerics: Spectral Elements • Non-conservative and non-monotonic • Allows high-order numerical method • Spectral convergence for smooth flows • GLL and GL collocation points • Non-orthogonal cubed-sphere computational grid

  22. Overview of the AMR comparison • 2D shallow water tests: (Williamson et al., JCP 1992) • Dynamic refinements for pure advection experiments Cosine bell advection test (test case 1) • Static refinements in regions of interest (test case 2) • Dynamic refinements and refinement criteria: Flow over a mountain (test case 5) • Rossby-Haurwitz wave with static refinements (test case 6)

  23. Snapshots: Advection of a Cosine Bell

  24. Snapshots: Advection of a Cosine Bell

  25. Error norms: Cosine Bell Advection Days Days Rotation angle = 45:Errors in SEM are lower than in FV

  26. Error norms after 12 days Rotation angle = 0SEM produces undershootsErrors arecomparable

  27. Snapshots: Cosine Bell at day 3 North-polar stereographic projection at day 3 for a = 90 Convergence of blocks in FV

  28. 2D Static adaptations FV model: Test case 2,  = 45 • Smooth flow in regimes with strong gradients

  29. Error norms: Test case 2 Days Days Rotation angle = 45:Errors in FV partly due to errors at AMR interfaces

  30. 2D Dynamic adaptations in FV Vorticity-basedadaptation criterion 2D shallowwater test #5:15-day run

  31. Snapshots: Flow over a mountain Geopotential height field (test case 5) Longitude Longitude

  32. Snapshots: Flow over a mountain Geopotential height field (test case 5) SEM FV

  33. Error norms: Test case 5 Hours Hours Errors in SEM converge quicker to the NCAR reference solution

  34. Snapshots: Rossby-Haurwitz Wave Geopotential height field (test case 6) at day 7 Smooth flow through static refinement regions

  35. Alternative AMR: Unstructured Triangular Grid Hurricane Floyd (1999) OMEGA model Courtesy ofA. Sarma (SAIC, NC, USA) Colors indicate the wind speed

  36. Conclusions & Outlook • Both grids, cubed-sphere meshes and latitude-longitude grids, are options for AMR techniques • SEM model shows lower error norms in comparison to FV: • Mainly due to high-order numerical method • Partly due to different AMR approach that does not need interpolations of ‘ghost cells’ in blocks • But: SEM is non-monotonic and non-conservative • Cubed-sphere grid has clear advantages: • No convergence of the meridians, no polar filters • But, GLL and GL points for numerical method in SEM are clustered along boundaries of spectral elements • Future interests: Finite-volume AMR method on a cubed-sphere grid

More Related