Comparison of free-surface and rigid-lid finite element models of barotropic instabilities
- 131 Downloads
The main goal of this work is to appraise the finite element method in the way it represents barotropic instabilities. To that end, three different formulations are employed. The free-surface formulation solves the primitive shallow-water equations and is of predominant use for ocean modeling. The vorticity–stream function and velocity–pressure formulations resort to the rigid-lid approximation and are presented because theoretical results are based on the same approximation. The growth rates for all three formulations are compared for hyperbolic tangent and piecewise linear shear flows. Structured and unstructured meshes are utilized. The investigation is also extended to time scales that allow for instability meanders to unfold, permitting the formation of eddies. We find that all three finite element formulations accurately represent barotropic instablities. In particular, convergence of growth rates toward theoretical ones is observed in all cases. It is also shown that the use of unstructured meshes allows for decreasing the computational cost while achieving greater accuracy. Overall, we find that the finite element method for free-surface models is effective at representing barotropic instabilities when it is combined with an appropriate advection scheme and, most importantly, adapted meshes.
KeywordsFinite element method Unstructured meshes Barotropic instabilities Free-surface flow
Laurent White is a research fellow and Eric Deleersnijder is a research associate with the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS). The present study was carried out within the scope of the project “A second-generation model of the ocean system,” which is funded by the Communauté Française de Belgique, as Actions de Recherche Concertées, under contract ARC 04/09-316. This work is a contribution to the construction of SLIM, the Second-Generation Louvain-la-Neuve Ice-ocean Model (http://www.climate.be/SLIM). The authors are indebted to Benoit Cushman-Roisin for the comments he provided during the first stages of the preparation of this paper, and they would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions that helped improve this manuscript.
- Cockburn B, Karniadakis GE, Shu CW (eds) (2000) Discontinuous Galerkin methods. Theory, computation and applications. In: Lectures notes in computational science and engineering, vol 11. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cushman-Roisin B (1994) Geophysical fluid dynamics. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
- Gresho PM, Sani RL (1998) Incompressible flow and the finite element method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Hanert E, Legat V, Deleersnijder E (2003) A comparison of three finite elements to solve the linear shallow water equations. Ocean Model 5:39–58Google Scholar
- Howard LN (1964) The number of unstable modes in hydrodynamic stability problems. J Mec 3:433–443Google Scholar
- Hua B, Thomasset F (1984) A noise-free finite element scheme for the two-layer shallow water equations. Tellus 36A:157–165Google Scholar
- Kuo HL (1949) Dynamic instability of two-dimensional non-divergent flow in a barotropic atmosphere. J Meteorol 6:105–122Google Scholar
- Kuo HL (1973) Dynamics of quasigeostrophic flows and instability theory. Adv Appl Mech 13:247–330Google Scholar
- Pedlosky J (1979) Geophysical fluid dynamics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Schwanenberg D, Kongeter J (2000) A discontinuous Galerkin method for the shallow water equations with source terms. IEEE Comput Sci Eng 11:419–424Google Scholar
- White L, Legat V, Deleersnijder E, Le Roux D (2006) A one-dimensional benchmark for the propagation of Poincaré waves. Ocean model, in pressGoogle Scholar