1987Monthly Weather ReviewOpen access

The Forward–in-Time Upstream Advection Scheme: Extension to Higher Orders

Craig J. Tremback, J. B. L. Powell, William R. Cotton, Roger A. Pielke

Open full text 197 citations

Abstract

A generalized forward-in-time upstream advective operator following the methodology of Crowley is developed and advective schemes of orders 1 through 10 are tested analytically and numerically. Flux forms of these schemes are also derived with Crowley’s methodology. It is shown that thew flux forms do not reduce to the advective form with constant velocity and grid spacing for schemes of order 3 and higher and they are not as accurate as the advective form. A new flux form is derived which does reduce to the advective form under the conditions of constant velocity and grid spacing. The schemes were tested in two dimensions using time splitting. In the rotating cone test, the advective and new flux forms performed identically, while the other flux form had larger dissipation and dispersion errors. In the deformational flow field test, the advective forms were unstable for both time steps tested. Use flux forms were less unstable for the higher Courant number and the domain as a whole was stable for the lower Courant number. With respect to order of the various forms, the schemes performed consistent with the linear stability analysis; errors decrease as the order of the scheme becomes greater. The sixth-order schemes appear to be the best balance between efficiency and accuracy.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A generalized forward-in-time upstream advective operator following the methodology of Crowley is developed and advective schemes of orders 1 through 10 are tested analytically and numerically. Flux forms of these schemes are also derived with Crowley’s methodology. It is shown that thew flux forms do not reduce to the advective form with constant velocity and grid spacing for schemes of order 3 and higher and they are not as accurate as the advective form. A new flux form is derived which does reduce to the advective form under the conditions of constant velocity and grid spacing. The schemes were tested in two dimensions using time splitting. In the rotating cone test, the advective and new flux forms performed identically, while the other flux form had larger dissipation and dispersion errors. In the deformational flow field test, the advective forms were unstable for both time steps tested. Use flux forms were less unstable for the higher Courant number and the domain as a whole was stable for the lower Courant number. With respect to order of the various forms, the schemes performed consistent with the linear stability analysis; errors decrease as the order of the scheme becomes greater. The sixth-order schemes appear to be the best balance between efficiency and accuracy.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 197 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A generalized forward-in-time upstream advective operator following the methodology of Crowley is developed and advective schemes of orders 1 through 10 are tested analytically and numerically. Flux forms of these schemes are also derived with Crowley’s methodology. It is shown that thew flux forms do not reduce to the advective form with constant velocity and grid spacing for schemes of order 3 and higher and they are not as accurate as the advective form. A new flux form is derived which does reduce to the advective form under the conditions of constant velocity and grid spacing. The schemes were tested in two dimensions using time splitting. In the rotating cone test, the advective and new flux forms performed identically, while the other flux form had larger dissipation and dispersion errors. In the deformational flow field test, the advective forms were unstable for both time steps tested. Use flux forms were less unstable for the higher Courant number and the domain as a whole was stable for the lower Courant number. With respect to order of the various forms, the schemes performed consistent with the linear stability analysis; errors decrease as the order of the scheme becomes greater. The sixth-order schemes appear to be the best balance between efficiency and accuracy.

Key concepts: Advection, Mathematics, Flux (metallurgy), Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy condition, Constant (computer programming), Flux limiter, Dissipation, Stability (learning theory)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Forward–in-Time Upstream Advection Scheme: Extension to Higher Orders — Research Paper | ScholarLens