2015
DOI: 10.1002/fld.4197
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A stabilization for three‐dimensional discontinuous Galerkin discretizations applied to nonhydrostatic atmospheric simulations

Abstract: Summary A discontinuous Galerkin nonhydrostatic atmospheric model is used for two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional simulations. There is a wide range of timescales to be dealt with. To do so, two different implicit/explicit time discretizations are implemented. A stabilization, based upon a reduced‐order discretization of the gravity term, is introduced to ensure the balance between pressure and gravity effects. While not affecting significantly the convergence properties of the scheme, this approach allows t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An exact solution of the linearized problem is available, which can also be used to verify the convergence of models solving the full nonlinear equations, provided the initial perturbation is small enough; we refer the reader to Baldauf and Brdar [4] for the details of the setup and the analytical "small-scale setup" solution. Experience from Blaise et al [7] and Baldauf [3], which used this test case to evaluate high-order DG solvers, shows that for high orders of accuracy Δ𝑇 has to be very small to avoid error saturation due to nonlinear effects. Following Baldauf [3], we deviate from the canonical setup in Baldauf and Brdar [4] by decreasing Δ𝑇 to 10 −3 K.…”
Section: Gravity Wave In a Channelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An exact solution of the linearized problem is available, which can also be used to verify the convergence of models solving the full nonlinear equations, provided the initial perturbation is small enough; we refer the reader to Baldauf and Brdar [4] for the details of the setup and the analytical "small-scale setup" solution. Experience from Blaise et al [7] and Baldauf [3], which used this test case to evaluate high-order DG solvers, shows that for high orders of accuracy Δ𝑇 has to be very small to avoid error saturation due to nonlinear effects. Following Baldauf [3], we deviate from the canonical setup in Baldauf and Brdar [4] by decreasing Δ𝑇 to 10 −3 K.…”
Section: Gravity Wave In a Channelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have also implement the IMEX-DIMSIM schemes in the discontinuous Galerkin solver GMSH-DG [4] and applied them to the three-dimensional compressible Euler equations coming from multiscale nonhydrostatic atmospheric simulations. All the experiments have been performed on a workstation with four Intel Xeon E5-2630 Processors.…”
Section: 32mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model, based upon the mesh database of the GMSH mesh generator code [16], has been used to solve several PDEs, either in the domain of geophysics [28,24] and engineering [29,23]. For more information about the space discretization, refer to [4]. The set of equations (4.5) applied to atmospheric flows is a good candidate for an IMEX time discretization, because of the different temporal scales involved.…”
Section: Compressible Euler Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2015), Blaise et al. (2016), Tumolo and Bonaventura (2015), D. Abdi and Giraldo (2016), Baldauf (2021) for a non‐exhaustive list of past uses of the DG method applied to atmospheric modeling.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Departing from standard practice to use central fluxes for the volume terms, we demonstrate choices among a new class of schemes, known as Flux-Differencing Discontinuous Galerkin (FDDG) methods (Winters et al, 2021), which provide the numerical stability and accuracy necessary for geophysical fluid dynamics applications, in which the flows in question are usually strongly underresolved. The resulting spatial discretization is different from other DG methods that have been applied to geophysical flows such as those of, for example, Giraldo and Restelli (2008), Nair et al (2009), Blaise et al (2016), Baldauf (2021). What follows is along a new thread of methods, for example, G. J.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%