Advertisement

A new hierarchically-structured n-dimensional covariant form of rotating equations of geophysical fluid dynamics

  • Werner BauerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

We introduce n-dimensional equations of geophysical fluid dynamics (GFD) valid on rotating n-dimensional manifolds. Moreover, by using straight and twisted differential forms and an auxiliary velocity field, we introduce hierarchically-structured equations of (geophysical) fluid dynamics in which the equations are split into metric-free and metric-dependent parts. For these sets of equations we provide representations in local coordinate charts and we show that they conserve potential vorticity and that Kelvin’s circulation theorem holds. As such general n-dimensional formulations do not exist in vector calculus, we provide for both covariant and vector-invariant equations a representation on a rotating coordinate frame in an Euclidean space and compare these representations. This study reveals, among others, that the prognostic variables, described by straight and twisted differential forms, are independent of both metric and orientation. This makes them perfect descriptors of the fluid’s quantities of interest, as they assign, analogously to physical measurement devices, real valued numbers to finite distances, areas, or volumes. This is not the case for prognostic variables described by (vector) proxy fields, as they depend on metric and orientation. The new structuring reveals also important geometrical features of the equations of GFD. For instance, the dimensioned differential forms display the geometric nature of the fluid’s characteristics, while the equations’ structuring illustrates how the metric-free momentum and continuity equations geometrically interact and how they are connected by the metric-dependent Hodge star and Riemannian lift. Besides this geometric insight, this structuring has also practical benefits: since equations containing only topological structure are less complicated to implement and can be integrated exactly, our results may contribute to more efficient and accurate discretizations.

Keywords

Rotating Euler’s equations Covariant equations Covariant split Euler’s equations of GFD Geophysical fluid dynamics Differential geometry  Exterior calculus 

Mathematics Subject Classification

Primary: 76U05 76A02 58J45 Secondary: 76M10 53Z99 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Jörn Behrens for his support and his valuable comments, as well as the two reviewers and F. Guglielmo for their valuable input. The author wishes to acknowledge funding by the Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability CEN at the University of Hamburg, Germany.

References

  1. Abraham, R., Marsden, J.E., Ratiu, T.: Manifolds, Tensor Analysis, and Applications, vol. 2. Addison-Wesley, USA (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, D.N.: Spaces of finite element differential forms. In: Gianazza, U., Brezzi, F., Colli Franzone, P., Gilardi, G. (eds.) Analysis and Numerics of Partial Differential Equations, pp. 117–140. Springer, UK (2013)Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, D.N., Falk, R.S., Winther, R.: Finite element exterior calculus, homological techniques, and applications. Acta Numer. 15, 1–155 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold, D.N., Falk, R.S., Winther, R.: Finite element exterior calculus: from Hodge theory to numerical stability. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 47, 281–354 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, R.: Flow Measurement Handbook: Industrial Designs, Operating Principles, Performance, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer, W.: Toward goal-oriented r-adaptive models in geophysical fluid dynamics using a generalized discretization approach. PhD thesis, Department of Geosciences, University of Hamburg (2013)Google Scholar
  7. Bochev, P., Hyman, J.: Principles of mimetic discretizations of differential operators. Compat. Spat. Discret. IMA Vol. Math. Appl. 142, 89–119 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonaventura, L., Ringler, T.: Analysis of discrete shallow-water models on geodesic delaunay grids with c-type staggering. Mon. Weather Rev. 133(8), 2351–2373 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bossavit, A.: On the geometry of electromagnetism (1): Euclidean space. Jpn. Soc. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. 6(1), 17–28 (1998a)Google Scholar
  10. Bossavit, A.: On the geometry of electromagnetism (2): geometrical objects. Jpn. Soc. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. 6(2), 114–123 (1998b)Google Scholar
  11. Bossavit, A.: On the geometry of electromagnetism (3): Faraday’s law. Jpn. Soc. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. 6(3), 233–240 (1998c)Google Scholar
  12. Bossavit, A.: On the geometry of electromagnetism (4): Maxwell’s house. Jpn. Soc. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. 6(4), 318–326 (1998d)Google Scholar
  13. Bossavit, A.: Computational electromagnetism and geometry (2): network constitutive laws. Jpn. Soc. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. 7(3), 294–301 (1999)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Bossavit, A.: ’Generalized finite differences’ in computational electromagnetics. Prog. Electromagn. Res. (PIER) 32, 45–64 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bossavit, A.: Generating whitney forms of polynomial degree one and higher. IEEE Trans. Magn. 38(2), 341–344 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bossavit, A.: Discretization of electromagnetic problems: the ’generalized finite differences’ approach. In: Numerical Methods in Electromagnetism (Handbook of Numerical Analysis, vol. 13). Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  17. Bossavit, A.: The premetric approach to electromagnetism in the waves are not vectors debate. Adv. Electromagn. 1(1), 97–102 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cotter, C., Thuburn, J.: A finite element exterior calculus framework for the rotating shallow-water equations. J. Comput. Phys. 257(Part B(0)), 1506–1526 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. Desbrun, M., Hirani, A.N., Leok, M., Marsden, J.E.: Discrete exterior calculus. arXiv:math/0508341v2 (2005a)
  20. Desbrun, M., Kanso, E., Tong, Y.: Discrete differential forms for computational modeling. In: ACM SIGGRAPH: Courses (SIGGRAPH’05). ACM, New York (2005b)Google Scholar
  21. Durran, D.: Numerical methods for wave equations in geophysical fluid dynamics. In: Marsden, J.E. (eds.) Springer, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  22. Elcott, S., Tong, Y., Kanso, E., Schröder, P., Desbrun, M.: Stable, circulation-preserving, simplicial fluids. ACM Trans. Graph. 26(1), Article 4 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. Flanders, H.: Differential forms with applications to the physical sciences. In: Dover Books on Mathematics Series. Dover Publications, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  24. Hatcher, A.: Algebraic Topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Hestenes, D.: Vectors, spinors, and complex numbers in classical and quantum physics. Am. J. Phys. 39(9), 1013–1027 (1971)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirani, A.N.: Discrete exterior calculus. PhD thesis, Pasadena. AAI3086864 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. Holenberg, Y., Lavrenteva, O.M., Shavit, U., Nir, A.: Particle tracking velocimetry and particle image velocimetry study of the slow motion of rough and smooth solid spheres in a yield-stress fluid. Phys. Rev. E 86, 066301 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holm, D., Marden, J.E., Ratiu, T.S.: The Euler–Poincare equations in geophysical fluid dynamics. In: Large-Scale Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics, vol. 2, pp. 251–300 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. Isham, C.J.: Modern Differential Geometry for Physicists. World Scientific, Singapore (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Jänich, K.: Vector Analysis. Springer, New York (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Kambe, T.: Geometrical theory of fluid flows and dynamical systems. Fluid Dyn. Res. 30(6), 331–378 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsden, J.E., Hughes, T.J.: Mathematical Foundations of Elasticity. Dover Publications, New York (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Marshall, J., Plumb, R.: Atmosphere, ocean and climate dynamics : an introductory text. In: International Geophysics, vol. 93. Academic Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  34. Mortari, D.: On the rigid rotation concept in n-dimensional spaces. J. Astronaut. Sci. 49(3), 401–420 (2001)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Mullen, P., McKenzie, A., Pavlov, D., Durant, L., Tong, Y., Kanso, E., Marsden, J., Desbrun, M.: Discrete lie advection of differential forms. Found. Comput. Math. 11, 131–149 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Pavlov, D., Mullen, P., Tong, Y., Kanso, E., Marsden, J., Desbrun, M.: Structure-preserving discretization of incompressible fluids. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 240(6), 443–458 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Pedlosky, J.: Geophysical Fluid Dynamics/Joseph Pedlosky. Springer, New York (1979)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Perot, J., Vidovic, D., Wesseling, P.: Mimetic reconstruction of vectors. In: Arnold, D.N., Bochev, P.B., Lehoucq, R.B., Nicolaides, R.A., Shashkov, M. (eds.) Compatible Spatial Discretizations. The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 142, pp. 173–188. Springer, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rípodas, P., Gassmann, A., Förstner, J., Majewski, D., Giorgetta, M., Korn, P., Kornblueh, L., Wan, H., Zängl, G., Bonaventura, L., Heinze, T.: Icosahedral shallow water model (ICOSWM): results of shallow water test cases and sensitivity to model parameters. Geosci. Model Dev. 2(2), 231–251 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simarro, J.P.: Exterior calculus in simulation of fluids. In: Workshop ICON and Friends (2007)Google Scholar
  41. Staniforth, A., Wood, N.: The deep-atmosphere euler equations in a generalized vertical coordinate. Mon. Weather Rev. 131(8), 1931–1938 (2003). doi: 10.1175//2564.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wallace, J.: Methods of measuring vorticity in turbulent flows. Exp. Fluids 4(2), 61–71 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. White, A.A., Hoskins, B.J., Roulstone, I., Staniforth, A.: Consistent approximate models of the global atmosphere: shallow, deep, hydrostatic, quasi-hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 131(609), 2081–2107 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, S.O.: Differential forms, fluids, and finite models. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 9939, 1–8 (2011)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CliSAP/CEN (Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability)University of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations