• Boris, J. P., and D. L. Book, 1973: Flux-corrected transport. Part I: SHASTA, a fluid transport algorithm that works. J. Comput. Phys.,11, 38–69.

  • Haltiner, G. J., and R. T. Williams, 1980: Numerical Prediction and Dynamic Meteorology. John Wiley and Sons, 477 pp.

  • Hoskins, B. J., 1980: Representation of the earth topography using spherical harmonics. Mon. Wea. Rev.,108, 111–115.

  • Klemp, J. B., and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1978: The simulation of three-dimensional convective storm dynamics. J. Atmos. Sci.,35, 1070–1096.

  • Raymond, W. H., 1988: High-order low-pass implicit tangent filters for use in finite area calculations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 2132–2141.

  • ——, and A. Garder, 1976: Selective damping in a Galerkin method for solving wave problems with variable grids. Mon. Wea. Rev.,104, 1583–1590.

  • Robert, A., 1993: Bubble convection experiments with a semi-implicit formulation of the Euler equations. J. Atmos. Sci.,50, 1865–1873.

  • Sardeshmukh, P. D., and B. J. Hoskins, 1984: Spatial smoothing on the sphere. Mon. Wea. Rev.,112, 2524–2529.

  • Shapiro, R., 1970: Smoothing, filtering and boundary effects. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys.,8, 359–387.

  • ——, 1975: Linear filtering. Math. Comp.,29, 1094–1097.

  • Skamarock, W. C., and J. B. Klemp, 1992: The stability of time-split numerical methods for the hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic elastic equations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,120, 2109–2127.

  • Smolarkiewicz, P. K., and W. W. Grabowski, 1990: The multidimensional positive definite advection transport algorithm: Nonoscillatory option. J. Comput. Phys.,86, 355–375.

  • Xue, M., K. K. Droegemeier, V. Wong, A. Shapiro, and K. Brewster, 1995: ARPS Version 4.0 User’s Guide. Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, 380 pp. [Available from CAPS, University of Oklahoma, 100 E. Boyd St., Norman OK 73019.].

  • Zalesak, S. T., 1979: Fully multidimensional flux-corrected transport algorithms for fluids. J. Comput. Phys.,31, 335–362.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 59 59 13
PDF Downloads 72 72 35

High-Order Monotonic Numerical Diffusion and Smoothing

View More View Less
  • 1 Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
© Get Permissions
Restricted access

Abstract

High-order numerical diffusion is commonly used in numerical models to provide scale selective control over small-scale noise. Conventional high-order schemes have undesirable side effects, however: they can introduce noise themselves. Two types of monotonic high-order diffusion schemes are proposed. One is based on flux correction/limiting on the corrective fluxes, which is the difference between a high-order (fourth order and above) diffusion scheme and a lower-order (typically second order) one. Overshooting and undershooting found in the solutions of higher-order diffusions near sharp gradients are prevented, while the highly selective property of damping is retained.

The second simpler (flux limited) scheme simply ensures that the diffusive fluxes are always downgradient; otherwise, the fluxes are set to zero. This much simpler scheme yields as good a solution in 1D cases as and better solutions in 2D than the one using the first more elaborate flux limiter. The scheme also preserves monotonicity in the solutions and is computational much more efficient.

The simple flux-limited fourth- and sixth-order diffusion schemes are also applied to thermal bubble convection. It is shown that overshooting and undershooting are consistently smaller when the flux-limited version of the high-order diffusion is used, no matter whether the advection scheme is monotonic or not. This conclusion applies to both scalar and momentum fields. Higher-order monotonic diffusion works better and even more so when used together with monotonic advection.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Ming Xue, Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, University of Oklahoma, 100 E. Boyd, Norman, OK 73019.

Email: mxue@ou.edu

Abstract

High-order numerical diffusion is commonly used in numerical models to provide scale selective control over small-scale noise. Conventional high-order schemes have undesirable side effects, however: they can introduce noise themselves. Two types of monotonic high-order diffusion schemes are proposed. One is based on flux correction/limiting on the corrective fluxes, which is the difference between a high-order (fourth order and above) diffusion scheme and a lower-order (typically second order) one. Overshooting and undershooting found in the solutions of higher-order diffusions near sharp gradients are prevented, while the highly selective property of damping is retained.

The second simpler (flux limited) scheme simply ensures that the diffusive fluxes are always downgradient; otherwise, the fluxes are set to zero. This much simpler scheme yields as good a solution in 1D cases as and better solutions in 2D than the one using the first more elaborate flux limiter. The scheme also preserves monotonicity in the solutions and is computational much more efficient.

The simple flux-limited fourth- and sixth-order diffusion schemes are also applied to thermal bubble convection. It is shown that overshooting and undershooting are consistently smaller when the flux-limited version of the high-order diffusion is used, no matter whether the advection scheme is monotonic or not. This conclusion applies to both scalar and momentum fields. Higher-order monotonic diffusion works better and even more so when used together with monotonic advection.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Ming Xue, Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, University of Oklahoma, 100 E. Boyd, Norman, OK 73019.

Email: mxue@ou.edu

Save