A low communication and large time step explicit finite-volume solver for non-hydrostatic atmospheric dynamics

• Published in: Journal of computational physics Vol. 230; no. 4; pp. 1567 - 1584
• Main Authors: Norman, Matthew R., Nair, Ramachandran D., Semazzi, Fredrick H.M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kidlington Elsevier Inc 20.02.2011; Elsevier
• Subjects: Atmospheric dynamics; Computational techniques; Exact sciences and technology; Finite volume; Flux vector splitting; Fully discrete; Mathematical methods in physics; Non-hydrostatic; Physics; Riemann solver; Flux vector splitting; Atmospheric dynamics; Non-hydrostatic; Finite volume; Fully discrete; Riemann solver; Method of characteristics; Second order; Atmosphere model; Third order; Digital simulation; Trajectories; Calculation methods; Advection; Operator splitting; Calculation; Lagrangian method; Acoustic waves
• ISSN: 0021-9991; 1090-2716
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.11.022

An explicit finite-volume solver is proposed for numerical simulation of non-hydrostatic atmospheric dynamics with promise for efficiency on massively parallel machines via low communication needs and large time steps. Solving the governing equations with a single stage lowers communication, and using the method of characteristics to follow information as it propagates enables large time steps. Using a non-oscillatory interpolant, the method is stable without post-hoc filtering. Characteristic variables (built from interface flux vectors) are integrated upstream from interfaces along their trajectories to compute time-averaged fluxes over a time step. Thus we call this method a Flux-Based Characteristic Semi-Lagrangian (FBCSL) method. Multidimensionality is achieved via a second-order accurate Strang operator splitting. Spatial accuracy is achieved via the third- to fifth-order accurate Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory (WENO) interpolant. We implement the theory to form a 2-D non-hydrostatic compressible (Euler system) atmospheric model in which standard test cases confirm accuracy and stability. We maintain stability with time steps larger than CFL=1 (CFL number determined by the acoustic wave speed, not advection) but note that accuracy degrades unacceptably for most cases with CFL>2. For the smoothest test case, we ran out to CFL=7 to investigate the error associated with simulation at large CFL number time steps. Analysis suggests improvement of trajectory computations will improve error for large CFL numbers.