Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Design of a Dynamical Core Based on the Nonhydrostatic “Unified System” of Equations

Celal S. Konor Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Search for other papers by Celal S. Konor in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jan 2014
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00187.1
Page(s):
364–385
Restricted access

Abstract

This paper presents the design of a dry dynamical core based on the nonhydrostatic “unified system” of equations. The unified system filters vertically propagating acoustic waves. The dynamical core predicts the potential temperature and horizontal momentum. It uses the predicted potential temperature to determine the quasi-hydrostatic components of the Exner pressure and density. The continuity equation is diagnostic (and used to determine the vertical mass flux) because the time derivative of the quasi-hydrostatic density is obtained from the predicted potential temperature. The nonhydrostatic component of the Exner pressure is obtained from an elliptic equation. The main focus of this paper is on the integration procedure used with this unique dynamical core. In the implementation described in this paper, height is used as the vertical coordinate, and the equations are vertically discretized on a Lorenz-type grid. Cartesian horizontal coordinates are used along with an Arakawa C grid. A detailed description of the discrete equations is presented in the supplementary material, along with the rationale behind the decisions made during the discretization process. Only a short description is given here. To demonstrate that the model is capable of simulating a wide range of dynamical scales, the results from cyclone- and cloud-scale simulations are presented. The solutions obtained for the selected cloud-scale simulations are compared to those from a fully compressible, anelastic, and pseudo-incompressible models that (as far as possible) uses the same schemes used in the unified dynamical core. The results show that the unified dynamical core performs reasonably well in all these experiments.

Supplemental information related to this paper is available at the Journals Online website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00187.s1.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Celal S. Konor, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1371. E-mail: csk@atmos.colostate.edu

Abstract

This paper presents the design of a dry dynamical core based on the nonhydrostatic “unified system” of equations. The unified system filters vertically propagating acoustic waves. The dynamical core predicts the potential temperature and horizontal momentum. It uses the predicted potential temperature to determine the quasi-hydrostatic components of the Exner pressure and density. The continuity equation is diagnostic (and used to determine the vertical mass flux) because the time derivative of the quasi-hydrostatic density is obtained from the predicted potential temperature. The nonhydrostatic component of the Exner pressure is obtained from an elliptic equation. The main focus of this paper is on the integration procedure used with this unique dynamical core. In the implementation described in this paper, height is used as the vertical coordinate, and the equations are vertically discretized on a Lorenz-type grid. Cartesian horizontal coordinates are used along with an Arakawa C grid. A detailed description of the discrete equations is presented in the supplementary material, along with the rationale behind the decisions made during the discretization process. Only a short description is given here. To demonstrate that the model is capable of simulating a wide range of dynamical scales, the results from cyclone- and cloud-scale simulations are presented. The solutions obtained for the selected cloud-scale simulations are compared to those from a fully compressible, anelastic, and pseudo-incompressible models that (as far as possible) uses the same schemes used in the unified dynamical core. The results show that the unified dynamical core performs reasonably well in all these experiments.

Supplemental information related to this paper is available at the Journals Online website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00187.s1.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Celal S. Konor, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1371. E-mail: csk@atmos.colostate.edu

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplemental Materials (PDF 4.91 MB)
Save
Cover Monthly Weather Review
Monthly Weather Review

  • Abiodun, B. J., J. M. Prusa, and W. J. Gutowski, 2008: Implementation of a non-hydrostatic, adaptive-grid dynamics core in CAM3. Part I: Comparison of dynamics cores in aqua-planet simulations. Climate Dyn., 31, 795–810.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Adcroft, A., C. Hill, and J. Marshall, 1997: The representation of topography by shaved cells in a height coordinate ocean model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 125, 2293-2315.

  • Arakawa, A., 1988: Finite-difference methods in climate modeling. Physically Based Modelling and Simulation of Climate and Climate Change, Part I, M. E. Schlesinger, Ed., Kluwer Academic Publisher, 79–168.

  • Arakawa, A., and V. R. Lamb, 1977: Computational design of the basic dynamical processes of the UCLA general circulation model. Methods in Computational Physics, J. Chang, Ed., Vol. 17, Academic Press, 173–265.

  • Arakawa, A., and C. S. Konor, 1996: Vertical differencing of the primitive equations based on a Charney–Phillips type grid in a σ-p hybrid vertical coordinates. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 511–528.

  • Arakawa, A., and C. S. Konor, 2009: Unification of the anelastic and quasi-hydrostatic systems of equations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,137, 710–726.

  • Bannon, P. R., 1996: On the anelastic approximation for a compressible atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci.,53, 3618–3628.

  • Bonaventura, L., 2004: The ICON project: Development of a unified model using triangular geodesic grids. Proc. ECMWF Seminar on Recent Developments in Numerical Methods for Atmosphere and Ocean Modelling, Shinfield Park, Reading, United Kingdom, ECMWF, 75–86.

  • Côté, J., S. Gravel, A. Méthot, A. Patoine, M. Roch, and A. Staniforth, 1998: The operational CMC-MRB Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model. Part I: Design considerations and formulation. Mon. Wea. Rev.,126, 1373–1395.

  • Cullen, M. J. P., 1990: A test of a semi-implicit integration technique for a fully compressible non-hydrostatic model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,116, 1253–1258, doi: 10.1002/qj.49711649513.

  • Davies, T., A. Staniforth, N. Wood, and J. Thuburn, 2003: Validity of anelastic and other equation sets as inferred from normal-mode analysis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,129, 2761–2775, doi:10.1256/qj.02.1951.

  • Davies, T., M. J. P. Cullen, A. J. Malcolm, M. H. Mawson, A. Staniforth, A. A. White, and N. Wood, 2005: A new dynamical core for the Met Office’s global and regional modelling of the atmosphere. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,131, 1759–1782, doi: 10.1256/qj.04.101.

  • Dukowicz, J., 2013: Evaluation of various approximations in atmosphere and ocean modeling based on an exact treatment of gravity wave dispersion. Mon. Wea. Rev., in press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Durran, D. R., 1989: Improving the anelastic approximation. J. Atmos. Sci.,46, 1453–1461.

  • Durran, D. R., 2008: A physically motivated approach for filtering acoustic waves from the equations governing compressible stratified flow. J. Fluid Mech., 601, 365–379.

  • Fulton, S. R., P. E. Ciesielski, and W. Schubert, 1986: Multigrid methods for elliptic problems: A review. Mon. Wea. Rev., 114, 943–959.

  • Gallus, W. A., and M. Rancic, 1996: A non-hydrostatic version of the NMC’s regional Eta model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,122, 495–513, doi:10.1002/qj.49712253010.

  • Grabowski, W. W., and T. L. Clark, 1991: Cloud environment interface instability: Rising thermal calculations in two spatial dimensions. J. Atmos. Sci.,48, 527–546.

  • Heikes, R. P., and D. A. Randall, 1995: Numerical integration of the shallow water equations on a twisted icosahedral grid. Part I: Basic design and results of tests. Mon. Wea. Rev.,123, 1862–1880.

  • Heikes, R. P., D. A. Randall, and C. S. Konor, 2013: Optimized icosahedral grids:Performance of finite-difference operators and multigrid solver. Mon. Wea. Rev., in press.

  • Janjic, Z. I., 2003: A nonhydrostatic model based on a new approach. Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 82, 271–285.

  • Janjic, Z. I., J. P. Gerrity Jr., and S. Nickovic, 2001: An alternative approach to nonhydrostatic modeling. Mon. Wea. Rev.,129, 1164–1178.

  • Jung, J.-H., and A. Arakawa, 2008: A three-dimensional anelastic model based on the vorticity equation. Mon. Wea. Rev.,136, 276–294.

  • Klein, R., U. Achatz, D. Bresch, O. M. Knio, and P. K. Smolarkiewicz, 2010: Regime of validity of soundproof atmospheric flow models. J. Atmos. Sci.,67, 3226–3237.

  • Klemp, J. B., 2011: A terrain-following coordinate with smoothed coordinate surfaces. Mon. Wea. Rev.,139, 2163–2169.

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

  • Konor, C. S., and A. Arakawa, 1997: Design of an atmospheric model based on a generalized vertical coordinate. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 1649–1673.

  • Kurowski, M. J., W. W. Grabowski, and P. K. Smolarkiewicz, 2013: Toward multiscale simulation of moist flows with soundproof equations. J. Atmos. Sci., in press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kwizak, M., and A. J. Robert, 1971: A semi-implicit scheme for grid point atmospheric models of the primitive equations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 99, 32–36.

  • Laprise, R., 1992: The Euler equations of motion with hydrostatic pressure as an independent variable. Mon. Wea. Rev., 120, 197–207.

  • Lipps, F. B., and R. S. Hemler, 1982: A scale analysis of deep moist convection and some related numerical calculations. J. Atmos. Sci.,39, 2192–2210.

  • Lorenz, E. N., 1960: Energy and numerical weather prediction. Tellus, 12, 364–373.

  • Marshall, J., A. Adcroft, C. Hill, L. Perelman, and C. Heisey, 1997: A finite-volume, incompressible Navier–Stokes model for studies of the ocean on parallel computers. J. Geophys. Res.,102 (C3), 5753–5766.

  • Mendez-Nunez, L. R., and J. J. Carroll, 1994: Application of the MacCormack scheme to atmospheric nonhydrostatic models. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 984–1000.

  • Mesinger, F., and A. Arakawa, 1976: Numerical methods used in atmospheric models. GARP Publication Series 17, Part I, 64 pp.

  • Miller, M. J., 1974: On the use of pressure as vertical co-ordinate in modeling convection. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,100, 155–162, doi:10.1002/qj.49710042403.

  • Newton, C. W., and A. Trevisan, 1984: Clinogenesis and frontogenesis in jet-stream waves. Part II: Channel model numerical experiments. J. Atmos. Sci.,41, 2735–2755.

  • Ogura, Y., and N. A. Phillips, 1962: Scale analysis of deep and shallow convection in the atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci.,19, 173–179.

  • Robert, A., 1982: A semi-Lagrangian and semi-implicit scheme for primitive equations. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 60, 319–324.

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

  • Satoh, M., T. Matsuno, H. Tomita, H. Miura, T. Nasuno, and S. Iga, 2008: Nonhydrostatic Icosahedral Atmospheric Model (NICAM) for global cloud resolving simulations. J. Comput. Phys., 227, 3486–3514, doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Shapiro, M. A., 1975: Simulation of upper-level frontogenesis with a 20-level isentropic coordinate primitive equation model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,103, 591–604.

  • Skamarock, W. C., and J. B. Klemp, 2008: A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric model for weather research and forecasting applications. J. Comput. Phys.,227, 3465–3485.

  • Skamarock, W. C., P. K. Smolorkiewicz, and J. B. Klemp, 1997: Preconditioned conjugate-residual solvers for Helmholtz equations in nonhydrostatic models. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 587–599.

  • Skamarock, W. C., J. B. Klemp, J. Dudhia, D. Gill, D. Barker, W. Wang, and J. G. Powers, 2005: A description of the Advanced Research WRF version 2. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-468+STR, 88 pp.

  • Skamarock, W. C., J. B. Klemp, M. G. Duda, L. Fowler, S.-H. Park, and T. D. Ringler, 2012: A multiscale nonhydrostatic atmospheric model using centroidal Voronoi Tessellations and C-grid staggering. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 3090–3105.

  • Smolarkiewicz, P. K., 2010: Modeling atmospheric circulations with soundproof equations. Proc. ECMWF Workshop on Nonhydrostatic Modeling, Shinfield Park, Reading, United Kingdom, ECMWF, 15 pp.

  • Smolarkiewicz, P. K., and J. A. Pudykiewicz, 1992: A class of semi-Lagrangian approximations for fluids. J. Atmos. Sci.,49, 2082 –2096.

  • Smolarkiewicz, P. K., and L. G. Margolin, 1994: Variational solver for elliptic problems in atmospheric flows. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., 4, 527–551.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Smolarkiewicz, P. K., V. Grubisic, and L. G. Margolin, 1997: On forward-in-time differencing for fluids: Stopping criteria for iterative solutions of anelastic pressure equations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 647–654.

  • Smolarkiewicz, P. K., L. G. Margolin, and A. A. Wyszogrodzki, 2001: A class of nonhydrostatic global models. J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 349–364.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Staniforth, A., A. White, J. Thuburn, M. Zerroukat, E. Cordero, and T. Davies, 2003: Joy of U.M. 5.5-model formulation. Unified Model Documentation Paper 15, Met Office, 530 pp.

  • Steppeler, J., R. Hess, U. Schättler, and L. Bonaventura, 2003: Review of numerical methods for nonhydrostatic weather prediction models. Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 82, 287–301.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Straka, J. M., R. B. Wilhelmson, L. J. Wicker, J. R. Anderson, and K. K. Droegemeier, 1993: Numerical solutions of a non-linear density current: A benchmark solution and comparisons. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids,17, 1–22.

  • Takacs, L. L., 1985: A two-step scheme for the advection equation with minimized dissipation and dispersion errors. Mon. Wea. Rev.,113, 1050–1065.

  • Takano, K., and M. G. Wurtele, 1982: A fourth order energy and potential enstrophy conserving difference scheme. Air Force Geophysics Laboratory Rep. AFGL-TR-82-0205 (NTIS AD- A126626), 87 pp.

  • Tapp, M., and P. W. White, 1976: A non-hydrostatic mesoscale model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,102, 277–296, doi:10.1002/qj.49710243202.

  • Toy, M. D., and D. A. Randall, 2009: Design of a non-hydrostatic atmospheric model based on a generalized vertical coordinate. Mon. Wea. Rev.,137, 2305–2330.

  • Ullrich, P., and C. Jablonowski, 2012: Operator-split Runge–Kutta–Rosenbrock methods for nonhydrostatic atmospheric models. Mon. Wea. Rev.,140, 1257–1284.

  • Wu, C.-M., and A. Arakawa, 2011: Inclusion of surface topography into the vector vorticity equation model (VVM). J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst.,3, M06002, doi:10.1029/2011MS000061.

  • Yeh, K.-S., J. Côté, S. Gravel, A. Méthot, A. Patoine, M. Roch, and A. Staniforth, 2002: The CMC–MRB Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model. Part III: Nonhydrostatic formulation. Mon. Wea. Rev.,130, 339–356.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 230 66 5
PDF Downloads 208 54 3