933 views

Uploaded by griflet

Simple leapfrog, face centred numerical scheme applied to solve the shallowwaters equations as described in Kantha-Clayson2000.

- Vehicle Dynamics_Thomas D
- Shallow Water Equations Smooth particle Hydrodynamics
- Mouse Pipe Flow Reference
- Abaqus Tutorial
- sim hydraulics guide.pdf
- Simulation of Vehicle Ride Characteristics
- Experiments With Matlab Book
- Applied Hydraulics
- Get Start of Sysnoise
- Vehicle Dynamics
- msc_nastran_2012_demo_problems
- Marc 2008 r1 Volume E: Demonstration Problems
- Simulink Model of Direct Torque Control of Induction Machine
- Dynamic Stability of Space Vehicle
- Partial Differential Equation with Matlab
- Abaqus Interaction Tutorial
- Suspension Design Rajeev_Mokashi
- MSC Nastran 2005 release Guide
- FSAE Suspension Optimization
- VDE-Vehicle dynamics engine

You are on page 1of 16

1

Guillaume Riflet

Abstract

The shallow water equations are introduced and discretized in a

standard C-grid with a leapfrog, FCTS numerical scheme combined

with simple Asselin-Roberts filtering as presented in Kantha and Clayson [5].

Plain Dirichelet conditions were implemented at the boundaries. Sim-

ple testing were performed with a gaussian level elevation and with

wind forcing. The geostrophic equilibrium of a gaussian level elevation

is presented and an analytical solution of the steady-state is obtained.

Results show that Dirichelet boundary conditions reflect all surface

waves back inside the domain and multiple linear superpositions oc-

cur, eventually leading to instability.

The shallow waters equations (SWE) describe the 2D barotropic mo-

tion of water masses. The system and its forcings are illustrated in

figure 1. The SWE are widely described throughout the literature; for

example, they are given in Kantha-Clayson[5] as

³ 2 ´

∂2u ∂η τw τb

∂Hu

+ ∂Huu

+ ∂Huv

− f Hv = νH ∂ u

+ − gH ∂x + ρu0 − ρu0

∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x

³ 2

2 ∂y 2

´

∂2v τvw τvb

∂Hv

∂t + ∂Hvu

∂x + ∂Hvv

∂y + f Hu = νH ∂ v

∂x 2 + ∂y 2 − gH ∂η

∂y + ρ0 − ρ0

∂η ∂Hu ∂Hv

∂t + ∂x + ∂y = 0

(1)

where H is the depth from the surface level to the bottom, u and v are

the zonal and meridional components of velocity, x, y and z are the

zonal, meridional and depth positions respectively. f = 1.01 × 10−4

rad/s is the Coriolis frequency at 42o of latitude, ν is the horizontal

turbulent viscosity, g = 9.8 m2 /s is the gravity acceleration, ρ0 = 1033

kg/m3 is the water mean density and eta is the water level relative to

rest. τub is the bottom stress zonal component, τuw is the wind stress

zonal component. The bottomstress [8] is given by

q

τub = ρ0 CD ub u2b + vb2

where CD is the bottom drag coefficient and ub and vb are the zonal

and meridional velocity bottom velocity components. The bottom drag

1

Figure 1: System depicted by the mathematical model. eta is the water

level from rest, d is the depth from rest, H is the depth from the water

level. The wind acts on the surface by forcing it, as well as the bed drags

on the bottom. The water column still has momentum in u, v, zonal and

meridional coordinates.

2

coefficient [6] is given by

µ ¶2

zD + z0

CD = k/ ln

z0

roughness length [6] and the Von Karman constant [6] is set to

k = 0.4.

q

τuw = ρa Ca u10 u210 + v10

2

whose values can be found in Pietrzak2002[8] and u10 and v10 is the

air speed at 10m height.

2 The mesh

The mesh in use is an Arakawa Staggered regular C-grid[1] as illus-

trated in figure 2. It is composed of three distinct cells: the U-cell,

the V-cell, and the T-cell, where are, respectively, at the centres the u,

the v and the η variables of equations 1. The C-grid provides better

precision for the non-linear advecting terms than the B-grid, however

it looses precision when evaluating the Coriolis term in equations 1 [1].

For simplicity, the mesh will have constant step-sizes ∆x and ∆y. The

indices i and j as shown in figure 2 and in figure 3 correspond to the

i-th zonal cell and the j-th meridional cell counted in the South-North

direction and in the West-East direction respectively.

For simplicity in the notation, the indices i and j will be omitted by

default. The spatial finite difference numerical scheme is the FCTS

described in [5]:

For the zonal momentum (U-Cell), the first-order spatial discretization

writes:

³ ´

∂Hu

= − (Huu)i+1/2 − (Huu) /∆x

∂t

³ ´ i−1/2

− (Huv)j+1/2 − (Huv)j−1/2 /∆y + f (Hv)

¡ ¢

+νH (ui−1 − 2ui + u¢i+1 ) /∆x2 + (uj−1 p

2

− 2uj + uj+1 ) /∆yp

¡

−gH ηi+1/2 − ηi−1/2 /∆x + ρρa0 Ca u10 u210 + v10 2 −C u

D b u2b + vb2

≡ Ru

3

Figure 2: Arakawa C staggered grid patterns. From left to right: the T-cell,

where η and H are evaluated at the centres, and u and v are evaluated at the

eastern, western faces and southern, northern faces respectively. The U-cell

where u is evaluated at the centre, η and H are evaluated at the eastern,

western faces, and v is evaluated at the corners. The V-cell, where v is eval-

uated at the centre, η and H are evaluated at the southern, northern faces,

and u is evaluated at the corners. The distance between two consecutive

cells of the same type is ∆x, zonally, and ∆y, meridionally. The indices i

and j correspond to the i-th zonal cell and the j-th meridional cell counted

in the South-North direction and in the West-East direction respectively.

4

where the halved indices correspond to fluxes at the U-cells’ faces.

Thus, the FCTS fluxes write:

2

(Huu)i+1/2 = H (ui+1 + u) /22 ,

2

(Huu)i−1/2 = Hi−1 (u + ui−1 ) /22 ,

(Huv)j+1/2 = 0.25 (Hi−1 + Hi + Hi−1,j+1 + Hi,j+1 ) (uj+1 + u) (vi−1,j+1 + vi,j+1 ) /22 ,

(Huv)j−1/2 = 0.25 (Hi−1 + Hi + Hi−1,j−1 + Hi,j−1 ) (u + uj−1 ) (vi−1 + v) /22 ,

f (Hv) = f (H + Hi−1 ) /2 (vi−1 + vi + vi−1,j+1 + vi,j+1 ) /4,

νH (ui−1 − 2ui + ui+1 ) = ν (H + Hi−1 ) /2 (ui−1 − 2ui + ui+1 ) ,

νH ¡(uj−1 − 2uj + uj+1

¢ ) = ν (H + Hi−1 ) /2 (uj−1 − 2uj + uj+1 ) ,

gH ηi+1/2 − ηi−1/2 = qg (H + Hi−1 ) (η − ηi−1 ) ,

p 2

CD u u + v = CD u u2 + (vi−1 + v + vi−1,j+1 + vi,j+1 ) .

2 2

p

Notice how the (Huu)j+1/2 , (Huv)j−1/2 , f (Hv) and CD u u2 + v 2

terms, loose significant precision over the other terms, due to their 4

terms averaging.

Hence, rewriting the full momentum FCTS spatial scheme we get:

³ ´

∂Hu 2 2

∂t = − H (ui+1 + u) /22 − Hi−1 (u + ui−1 ) /22 /∆x

µ ¶

0.25 (Hi−1 + Hi + Hi−1,j+1 + Hi,j+1 ) (uj+1 + u) (vi−1,j+1 + vi,j+1 ) /22

− /∆y

−0.25 (Hi−1 + Hi + Hi−1,j−1 + Hi,j−1 ) (u + uj−1 ) (vi−1 + v) /22

+f (H + Hi−1 ) /2 (vi−1 + vi + vi−1,j+1 + vi,j+1 ) /4

+ν (H + Hi−1 ) /2 (ui−1 − 2ui + ui+1 ) /∆x2

+ν (H + Hi−1 ) /2 (uj−1 − 2uj + uj+1 ) /∆y 2

−g (H + Hi−1 ) (η − ηi−1 ) /∆xq

p 2

+ ρρa0 Ca u10 u210 + v10

2 − C u u2 + (v

D i−1 + v + vi−1,j+1 + vi,j+1 )

≡ Ru

For the meridional spatial momentum scheme in the V-Cells, clever

symmetry one-to-one relations with zonal momentum scheme in the

U-cells are used:

• switch ∆x and ∆y: ∆x ↔ ∆y,

• switch i and j: i ↔ j,

• switch u and v: u ↔ v,

• switch signal of the Coriolis term: (+ ↔ −).

The finite-difference first-order numerical scheme for the waterlevel (T-

Cell) writes out:

³ ´ ³ ´

∂η

∂t = − (Hu)i+1/2 − (Hu)i−1/2 /∆x − (Hv)j+1/2 − (Hv)j−1/2 /∆y

≡ Rη,

and each face’s FCTS flux term writes down:

(Hu)i+1/2 = (H + Hi+1 ) /2 ui+1 ,

(Hu)i−1/2 = (Hi−1 + H) /2 u,

(Hv)j+1/2 = (H + Hj+1 ) /2 vj+1 ,

(Hv)j−1/2 = (Hj−1 + H) /2 v.

5

Thus, the full waterlevel FCTS numerical scheme is:

∂η

∂t = − ((H + Hi+1 ) /2 ui+1 − (Hi−1 + H) /2 u) /∆x

− ((H + Hj+1 ) /2 vj+1 − (Hj−1 + H) /2 v) /∆y

≡ Rη.

H l+1 =¡η l+1 +¡ d,l−1 ¢ ¢ ¡ ¢

l+1 l−1 l−1 l+1

u = ¡u ¡ H + Hi−1 ¢ + 4∆t {Ru}¢ /¡ H l+1 + Hi−1 ¢ ,

l−1 l+1

v l+1 = v l−1 H l−1 + Hi−1 + 4∆t {Rv} / H l+1 + Hi−1 .

Notice how the leapfrog time scheme obliges two initial conditions at t0

and at t1 . Hence, in order to avoid mode decoupling, a Robert-Asselin

filter for u, v, η at each integration time-step is used, as suggested

by [5]:

¡ ¢

P l = P l + γ P l−1 − 2P l + P l+1 ,

where γ is a parameter set to 0.1 [5]. The Robert-Asselin provides

a good coupling between the two initial conditions, at the expense of

some loss in precision.

The stability criterion is the CFL criterion described in Kantha-Clayson

2000 [5]: µ µ ¶¶

p 1 1

max 2∆t gH + 2 < 1.0

x2 y

Note that for stability reasons, in the momentum equations, the friction

terms are evaluated at time l − 1.

4 Boundary conditions

Currently, only Dirichelet conditions are implemented at the bound-

aries. Indeed, if the T-cells domain has M × N nodes then the U-

cells have M × (N + 1) nodes and the V-cells have (M + 1) × N

nodes. η is calculated within {2, ..., (M − 1)} × {2, ..., (N − 1)}

and u and v are calculated within {2, ..., (M − 1)} × {2, ..., N } and

{2, ..., M } × {2, ..., (N − 1)}.

5 Results

5.1 Gaussian level initial condition

In a 20×20 grid points basin with 10 m depth, 10 m spatial increments

and 0.1 s time increments, we dropped a gaussian water level elevation

of 0.2 meters according to

1 (x−x0 )2 +(y−y0 )2

η(x, y) = √ e− 2σ 2 (2)

σ 2π

6

Figure 3: Detailed mesh emphasizing the boundaries. Composite of T, U and

V-cells, the mesh illustrates the zone of integration of each type of cell: the

blue rectangle contains the T-cells computed nodes, the thin green rectangle

contains the U-cells computed nodes, the thin red rectangle contains the V-

cells computed nodes. The thick green and red rectangles, however, delimit

respectively the faces of the U and V-cells computed nodes.

7

Figure 4: Water level elevation test-run. 2D model initial condition with

Dirichelet conditions at the boundary.

with (x0 , y0 ) = (Lx /2, Ly /2) and σ = 1. The Dirichelet conditions set

the velocity and water level to null at the boundary, thus forcing the

surface waves to bounce back from the boundary, as seen in the figures

[4-12].

5.1.1 Energy

The kinetic energy, KE is given by [4]

Z Z

1 ¡ ¢

KE = ρgH u2 + v 2 dA;

2

the perturbation potential energy, P P E is given [4]

Z Z

1

PPE = ρgη 2 dA;

2

and the total energy is the sum T E = KE + P P E. Figure 13 shows

the evolution of the total, kinetic and potential energy of the gaussian

elevation test case in inviscid, fritctionless conditions. The energy de-

cay is strictly due to numerical diffusion, as the Dirichelet boundary

conditions allow no energy flux through. The FCTS scheme is widely

reknown for its high numerical diffusivity.

For a fetch of 10 kilometers with 5 m/s near-surface winds in a 2

m depth basin, the typical maximum water level elevation reached is

15 − 20 cm high [3]. In (14) is shown a fully developed surface velocity

field field when such a forcing is applied along the y coordinate.

8

Figure 5: Water level elevation test-run for t = 0.7 s.

9

Figure 7: Water level elevation test-run for t = 2.1 s.

10

Figure 9: Water level elevation test-run for t = 3.5 s.

11

Figure 11: Water level elevation test-run for t = 4.9 s.

12

6 Energy vs time

x 10

3

Total energy

Kinetic energy

Potential energy

2.5

2

E(J)

1.5

0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

t(s)

frictionless conditions during a t = 60 s run.

Figure 14: Fully developed surface velocities and water level when forcing

with a 5 m/s wind along the y-coordinate.

13

5.3 Geostrophic equilibrium

The steady-state solution where the Coriolis force balances the pressure

gradient in a constant depth domain writes

(

∂η

f Hvg = gH ∂x

(3)

f Hug = −gH ∂η ∂y

apply the first derivatives along y and x to the first and second differ-

ential equation respectively, and assuming that the Coriolis frequency

is constant throughout the domain, we get:

³ ∂η ´

( ∂Hv ∂Hvg g ∂H ∂η ∂ ∂x

g ∂η = + H

∂y = f ∂x

g

∂y f ∂y ∂x

µ ∂y ¶ .

∂Hug g ∂η ⇒ ∂ ∂η

∂x = − f ∂y

∂Hu g ∂H ∂η

∂x = − f ∂x ∂y + H ∂x

g ∂y

∂Hug ∂Hvg ∂η

+ =0 ⇒ =0

∂x ∂y ∂t

is obtained. This shows that the constraints yield a well-posed prob-

lem and a steady state solution. The system is then said to be in

geostrophic equilibrium and ug and vg are the geostrophic velocity

components. Plus, (3) yield analytical solution. Indeed, if we use the

gaussian elevation for η given in (2) then

(

∂η x−x0

∂x = − σ 2 η

∂η y−y0

∂y = − σ 2 η

( 2 2

g x−x0

vg = f σ 2 η v = g x−x0 √1 e− (x−x0 ) 2σ+(y−y

2

0)

g f σ 2 σ 2π

⇔ . (4)

ug = − fg y−y

2 2

σ2 η u = − g y−y0 √1 e− (x−x0 ) 2σ+(y−y

0 0)

2

g f σ 2 σ 2π

The geostrophic velocity field given in (4) may apply to T-cells. Thus

simple linear interpolation is required when applying it to U-cells and

V-cells. In (15) is plotted the analytical solution of the steady state

problem.

6 Conclusions

Here lies the shallow-water equations numerical model as described in

Kantha-Clayson [5] with the same numerical scheme. It currently only

has the Dirichelet boundary conditions. This means that all surface

waves bounce back at the boundary and and give rise to a cascade of

multiple linear superpositions leading to a path of unavoidable numer-

ical instability. The commonly used solution is to radiate the level at

14

Figure 15: Initial condition in geostrophic balance at t = 0 s.

conditions at the boundaries, variable coriolis force, variable bottom

topography, cyclic boundary conditions besides radiating level and mo-

mentum. Ultimately, using flow relaxation schemes at the boundaries

is considered [9], [8], as well as developing the recent works of Blayo [2].

References

[1] Arakawa, A. Computational design for long-term numerical in-

tegration of the equations of fluid motion: two-dimensional incom-

pressible flow. Part i. 119–143.

[2] Blayo, E., and Debreu, L. Revisiting open boundary conditions

from the point of view of characteristic variables. Ocean Modelling

9 (2005), 231–252.

[3] Brito, D. Titulo do trabalho do david. work in progress, 2006.

[4] Gill, A. E. Atmosphere-ocean dynamics. International Geo-

physics Series (1982), xv, 662 p–xv, 662 p.

[5] Kantha, L. H., and Clayson, C. A. Numerical models of

oceans and oceanic processes. 1168–1168.

[6] Leitão, P. C. Integração de escalas e de processos na mod-

elação do ambiente marinho. Environmental Engineering Depart-

ment (2002).

[7] Orlanski, I. A simple boundary condition for unbounded hyper-

bolic flows. Journal of Computational Physics 21 (1976), 251–269.

[8] Pietrzak, J., Jakobson, J. B., Burchard, H., Ja-

cob Vested, H., and Petersen, O. A three-dimensional hy-

15

drostatic model for coastal and ocean modelling using a generalised

topography following co-ordinate system. 173–205.

[9] Shchepetkin, A. F. A method for computing horizontal pressure-

gradient force in an oceanic model with a nonaligned vertical co-

ordinate. 3090–3090.

16

- Vehicle Dynamics_Thomas DUploaded byJasbir Singh Dhanoa
- Shallow Water Equations Smooth particle HydrodynamicsUploaded byGourab Pahar
- Mouse Pipe Flow ReferenceUploaded byapi-3698757
- Abaqus TutorialUploaded byLava Sat
- sim hydraulics guide.pdfUploaded byVenkatesh Gangadhar
- Simulation of Vehicle Ride CharacteristicsUploaded byNeville Lawless
- Experiments With Matlab BookUploaded byosencan
- Applied HydraulicsUploaded bytubeline
- Get Start of SysnoiseUploaded byvaninho
- Vehicle DynamicsUploaded byMamesh Mathankar
- msc_nastran_2012_demo_problemsUploaded bySaad Al Hely
- Marc 2008 r1 Volume E: Demonstration ProblemsUploaded byKevin
- Simulink Model of Direct Torque Control of Induction MachineUploaded bydivinelight
- Dynamic Stability of Space VehicleUploaded byapi-3827338
- Partial Differential Equation with MatlabUploaded byJuan Manuel Olivo
- Abaqus Interaction TutorialUploaded byhasib
- Suspension Design Rajeev_MokashiUploaded byJatin351
- MSC Nastran 2005 release GuideUploaded byjossy2
- FSAE Suspension OptimizationUploaded byisaiahfreerksen
- VDE-Vehicle dynamics engineUploaded byJordan HotCoffee Bennett
- Electrodynamic Suspension SystemUploaded byPrithviraj Daga
- Franc3D Abaqus TutorialUploaded bytomer1979
- Detailed Open Channel HydraulicsUploaded bypcguru.oregon5759
- Adamkowski & Lewandowski (2006)Unsteady Friction Models forUploaded byurosk
- Frequency FundamentalsUploaded byAnil_Nambiaruveetil
- VehDynamicsUploaded byPrem Dheeraz
- Dynamics Model for VehicleUploaded byBruno Ramos
- MSC.Nastran Basic Dynamic Analysis User's GuideUploaded byDon
- Pipe Flow Matlab a 1Uploaded byMadusuthanan Sababathy
- Comp Models for Turbulent FlowsUploaded bySyed Faisal Nadeem

- WPG-RDP-E02Uploaded bysaeidian
- Fluid Dynamics1Uploaded byBuddhi Raj Sharma
- White Paper Electrical Ground Rules Pt1 993Uploaded byPereira Paulo
- Water and Steam_d14Uploaded by2cekal
- lecture_10_dc_to_dc_converters.pptxUploaded byprabhash anand
- Schenk_k_1999.pdfUploaded bySathish Kumar Yallampalli
- Howells2011 SI Units Force Mass and AccelerationUploaded byyennifer
- Fundamentals of Electromagnetics (Full Book)Uploaded byCooper Dawson
- Codigo OemUploaded byDavid Fernandez
- As a Level GCE Physics B Formulae Relationships BookletUploaded bycotswoldstone-temp070111
- Lubrication & Journal Bearings [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byAbhinav Tiwari
- Aberdeen Drilling School - HPHTUploaded bylaaliauto
- Analisis TrialUploaded byZaiwati Othman
- 1. power diodes.docxUploaded byJahanzaib Safdar
- Specific Heat Calcium ChlorideUploaded bytesyrdjf
- Handbook on Maintenance of Electrical General Service Sub-Station(1)Uploaded byvisuveswar
- chapter 12.docxUploaded byjomilan
- Chapter 1Uploaded bySylvia Chieng
- Exp 1 Uncertainty in Measur RevUploaded byவிக்னேஷ் ஆறுமுகம்
- slup198Uploaded byMarius Bar
- Mass Balance FixUploaded byAbdullah Abdul
- Forces in Big Synchronous MachinesUploaded byMaycon Maran
- CCST Conversions DocumentUploaded byDipika Gupta
- Elektrik K2BhgCK3BhgB GuruUploaded byA. Suhaimi
- Protection Requirements for a Large Scale Wind ParkUploaded byhozipek
- KATO KCR360 REGULATORUploaded bylitomenso
- surface area and volumeUploaded byapi-283229700
- chapter 11 12 testUploaded byapi-350435190
- 4.8.CompressorsUploaded byManoj Misra
- Ammeter VoltmeterUploaded byrontojoy