Discretization errors and free surface stabilization in the finite difference and marker-in-cell method for applied geodynamics: A numerical study

The finite difference–marker‐in‐cell (FD‐MIC) method is a popular method in thermomechanical modeling in geodynamics. Although no systematic study has investigated the numerical properties of the method, numerous applications have shown its robustness and flexibility for the study of large viscous d...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems : G3 geophysics, geosystems : G3, 2011-07, Vol.12 (7), p.np-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Duretz, T., May, D. A., Gerya, T. V., Tackley, P. J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 7
container_start_page np
container_title Geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems : G3
container_volume 12
creator Duretz, T.
May, D. A.
Gerya, T. V.
Tackley, P. J.
description The finite difference–marker‐in‐cell (FD‐MIC) method is a popular method in thermomechanical modeling in geodynamics. Although no systematic study has investigated the numerical properties of the method, numerous applications have shown its robustness and flexibility for the study of large viscous deformations. The model setups used in geodynamics often involve large smooth variations of viscosity (e.g., temperature‐dependent viscosity) as well large discontinuous variations in material properties (e.g., material interfaces). Establishing the numerical properties of the FD‐MIC and showing that the scheme is convergent adds relevance to the applications studies that employ this method. In this study, we numerically investigate the discretization errors and order of accuracy of the velocity and pressure solution obtained from the FD‐MIC scheme using two‐dimensional analytic solutions. We show that, depending on which type of boundary condition is used, the FD‐MIC scheme is a second‐order accurate in space as long as the viscosity field is constant or smooth (i.e., continuous). With the introduction of a discontinuous viscosity field characterized by a viscosity jump (η*) within the control volume, the scheme becomes first‐order accurate. We observed that the transition from second‐order to first‐order accuracy will occur with only a small increase in the viscosity contrast (η* ≈ 5). We have employed two methods for projecting the material properties from the Lagrangian markers onto the Eulerian nodes. The methods are based on the size of the interpolation volume (4‐cell, 1‐cell). The use of a more local interpolation scheme (1‐cell) decreases the absolute velocity and pressure discretization errors. We also introduce a stabilization algorithm that damps the potential oscillations that may arise from quasi free surface calculations in numerical codes that employ the strong form of the Stokes equations. This correction term is of particular interest for topographic modeling, since the surface of the Earth is generally represented by a free surface. Including the stabilization enables physically meaningful solutions to be obtained from our simulations, even in cases where the time step value exceeds the isostatic relaxation time. We show that including the stabilization algorithm in our FD stencil does not affect the convergence properties of our scheme. In order to verify our approach, we performed time‐dependent simulations of free surface Rayleigh‐Taylor ins
doi_str_mv 10.1029/2011GC003567
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1654693524</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1221862633</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5423-af55d48909beb135cd492e3d3ecafc19f106bf59eba08b0c914de32a2d01a38b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUFv1DAQhSNEJUrLrT_A4sQl4LHjJOZWLSVbVLWXInqzHHtMXRJnsRO125_BL8arhariwml8-N6b8XtFcQL0PVAmPzAK0K0o5aJuXhSHIJgoGWXNy2fvV8XrlO4ohUqI9rD49cknE3H2j3r2UyAY4xQT0cESFxFJWqLTJs9Z9374S_lA5lskzgc_I7HeOYwYMrbTjTr-wFj6UBocBjLifDtltykSvdkMHi35jpPdBj16kz6SUxKWEaM3eshbFrs9Lg6cHhK--TOPiq-fz65X6_LiqjtfnV6UWlSMl9oJYatWUtljD1wYW0mG3HI02hmQDmjdOyGx17TtqZFQWeRMM0tB87bnR8W7ve8mTj8XTLMacxb5ZB1wWpKCWlS15IJV_0cZg7ZmNecZffsPejctMeSPqLbJvTS83fmxPXTvB9yqTfQ5tK0CqnY9quc9qq7rzkA2O-dyL_JpxocnUU5b1Q1vhPp22alutb6BL7BWa_4bDz-i4A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>875677384</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Discretization errors and free surface stabilization in the finite difference and marker-in-cell method for applied geodynamics: A numerical study</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Collection</source><creator>Duretz, T. ; May, D. A. ; Gerya, T. V. ; Tackley, P. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Duretz, T. ; May, D. A. ; Gerya, T. V. ; Tackley, P. J.</creatorcontrib><description>The finite difference–marker‐in‐cell (FD‐MIC) method is a popular method in thermomechanical modeling in geodynamics. Although no systematic study has investigated the numerical properties of the method, numerous applications have shown its robustness and flexibility for the study of large viscous deformations. The model setups used in geodynamics often involve large smooth variations of viscosity (e.g., temperature‐dependent viscosity) as well large discontinuous variations in material properties (e.g., material interfaces). Establishing the numerical properties of the FD‐MIC and showing that the scheme is convergent adds relevance to the applications studies that employ this method. In this study, we numerically investigate the discretization errors and order of accuracy of the velocity and pressure solution obtained from the FD‐MIC scheme using two‐dimensional analytic solutions. We show that, depending on which type of boundary condition is used, the FD‐MIC scheme is a second‐order accurate in space as long as the viscosity field is constant or smooth (i.e., continuous). With the introduction of a discontinuous viscosity field characterized by a viscosity jump (η*) within the control volume, the scheme becomes first‐order accurate. We observed that the transition from second‐order to first‐order accuracy will occur with only a small increase in the viscosity contrast (η* ≈ 5). We have employed two methods for projecting the material properties from the Lagrangian markers onto the Eulerian nodes. The methods are based on the size of the interpolation volume (4‐cell, 1‐cell). The use of a more local interpolation scheme (1‐cell) decreases the absolute velocity and pressure discretization errors. We also introduce a stabilization algorithm that damps the potential oscillations that may arise from quasi free surface calculations in numerical codes that employ the strong form of the Stokes equations. This correction term is of particular interest for topographic modeling, since the surface of the Earth is generally represented by a free surface. Including the stabilization enables physically meaningful solutions to be obtained from our simulations, even in cases where the time step value exceeds the isostatic relaxation time. We show that including the stabilization algorithm in our FD stencil does not affect the convergence properties of our scheme. In order to verify our approach, we performed time‐dependent simulations of free surface Rayleigh‐Taylor instability. Key Points Error analysis of the finite difference and marker‐in‐cell method Methodology for computing convergence properties of a scheme Free surface stabilization algorithm for finite difference Stokes flow</description><identifier>ISSN: 1525-2027</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-2027</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2011GC003567</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Boundary conditions ; convergence ; Discretization ; Error analysis ; finite difference ; free surface ; Free surfaces ; Geodynamics ; Geophysics ; High performance computing ; marker-in-cell ; Mathematical analysis ; Mathematical models ; Mathematics ; Stabilization ; Viscosity</subject><ispartof>Geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems : G3, 2011-07, Vol.12 (7), p.np-n/a</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union.</rights><rights>Copyright 2011 by American Geophysical Union</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5423-af55d48909beb135cd492e3d3ecafc19f106bf59eba08b0c914de32a2d01a38b3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2011GC003567$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2011GC003567$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,11564,27926,27927,45576,45577,46054,46478</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029%2F2011GC003567$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Duretz, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>May, D. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerya, T. V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tackley, P. J.</creatorcontrib><title>Discretization errors and free surface stabilization in the finite difference and marker-in-cell method for applied geodynamics: A numerical study</title><title>Geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems : G3</title><addtitle>Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst</addtitle><description>The finite difference–marker‐in‐cell (FD‐MIC) method is a popular method in thermomechanical modeling in geodynamics. Although no systematic study has investigated the numerical properties of the method, numerous applications have shown its robustness and flexibility for the study of large viscous deformations. The model setups used in geodynamics often involve large smooth variations of viscosity (e.g., temperature‐dependent viscosity) as well large discontinuous variations in material properties (e.g., material interfaces). Establishing the numerical properties of the FD‐MIC and showing that the scheme is convergent adds relevance to the applications studies that employ this method. In this study, we numerically investigate the discretization errors and order of accuracy of the velocity and pressure solution obtained from the FD‐MIC scheme using two‐dimensional analytic solutions. We show that, depending on which type of boundary condition is used, the FD‐MIC scheme is a second‐order accurate in space as long as the viscosity field is constant or smooth (i.e., continuous). With the introduction of a discontinuous viscosity field characterized by a viscosity jump (η*) within the control volume, the scheme becomes first‐order accurate. We observed that the transition from second‐order to first‐order accuracy will occur with only a small increase in the viscosity contrast (η* ≈ 5). We have employed two methods for projecting the material properties from the Lagrangian markers onto the Eulerian nodes. The methods are based on the size of the interpolation volume (4‐cell, 1‐cell). The use of a more local interpolation scheme (1‐cell) decreases the absolute velocity and pressure discretization errors. We also introduce a stabilization algorithm that damps the potential oscillations that may arise from quasi free surface calculations in numerical codes that employ the strong form of the Stokes equations. This correction term is of particular interest for topographic modeling, since the surface of the Earth is generally represented by a free surface. Including the stabilization enables physically meaningful solutions to be obtained from our simulations, even in cases where the time step value exceeds the isostatic relaxation time. We show that including the stabilization algorithm in our FD stencil does not affect the convergence properties of our scheme. In order to verify our approach, we performed time‐dependent simulations of free surface Rayleigh‐Taylor instability. Key Points Error analysis of the finite difference and marker‐in‐cell method Methodology for computing convergence properties of a scheme Free surface stabilization algorithm for finite difference Stokes flow</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Boundary conditions</subject><subject>convergence</subject><subject>Discretization</subject><subject>Error analysis</subject><subject>finite difference</subject><subject>free surface</subject><subject>Free surfaces</subject><subject>Geodynamics</subject><subject>Geophysics</subject><subject>High performance computing</subject><subject>marker-in-cell</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Mathematics</subject><subject>Stabilization</subject><subject>Viscosity</subject><issn>1525-2027</issn><issn>1525-2027</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUFv1DAQhSNEJUrLrT_A4sQl4LHjJOZWLSVbVLWXInqzHHtMXRJnsRO125_BL8arhariwml8-N6b8XtFcQL0PVAmPzAK0K0o5aJuXhSHIJgoGWXNy2fvV8XrlO4ohUqI9rD49cknE3H2j3r2UyAY4xQT0cESFxFJWqLTJs9Z9374S_lA5lskzgc_I7HeOYwYMrbTjTr-wFj6UBocBjLifDtltykSvdkMHi35jpPdBj16kz6SUxKWEaM3eshbFrs9Lg6cHhK--TOPiq-fz65X6_LiqjtfnV6UWlSMl9oJYatWUtljD1wYW0mG3HI02hmQDmjdOyGx17TtqZFQWeRMM0tB87bnR8W7ve8mTj8XTLMacxb5ZB1wWpKCWlS15IJV_0cZg7ZmNecZffsPejctMeSPqLbJvTS83fmxPXTvB9yqTfQ5tK0CqnY9quc9qq7rzkA2O-dyL_JpxocnUU5b1Q1vhPp22alutb6BL7BWa_4bDz-i4A</recordid><startdate>201107</startdate><enddate>201107</enddate><creator>Duretz, T.</creator><creator>May, D. A.</creator><creator>Gerya, T. V.</creator><creator>Tackley, P. J.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201107</creationdate><title>Discretization errors and free surface stabilization in the finite difference and marker-in-cell method for applied geodynamics: A numerical study</title><author>Duretz, T. ; May, D. A. ; Gerya, T. V. ; Tackley, P. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a5423-af55d48909beb135cd492e3d3ecafc19f106bf59eba08b0c914de32a2d01a38b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Boundary conditions</topic><topic>convergence</topic><topic>Discretization</topic><topic>Error analysis</topic><topic>finite difference</topic><topic>free surface</topic><topic>Free surfaces</topic><topic>Geodynamics</topic><topic>Geophysics</topic><topic>High performance computing</topic><topic>marker-in-cell</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Mathematics</topic><topic>Stabilization</topic><topic>Viscosity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Duretz, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>May, D. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerya, T. V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tackley, P. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest_Research Library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems : G3</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Duretz, T.</au><au>May, D. A.</au><au>Gerya, T. V.</au><au>Tackley, P. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Discretization errors and free surface stabilization in the finite difference and marker-in-cell method for applied geodynamics: A numerical study</atitle><jtitle>Geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems : G3</jtitle><addtitle>Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst</addtitle><date>2011-07</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>np</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>np-n/a</pages><issn>1525-2027</issn><eissn>1525-2027</eissn><abstract>The finite difference–marker‐in‐cell (FD‐MIC) method is a popular method in thermomechanical modeling in geodynamics. Although no systematic study has investigated the numerical properties of the method, numerous applications have shown its robustness and flexibility for the study of large viscous deformations. The model setups used in geodynamics often involve large smooth variations of viscosity (e.g., temperature‐dependent viscosity) as well large discontinuous variations in material properties (e.g., material interfaces). Establishing the numerical properties of the FD‐MIC and showing that the scheme is convergent adds relevance to the applications studies that employ this method. In this study, we numerically investigate the discretization errors and order of accuracy of the velocity and pressure solution obtained from the FD‐MIC scheme using two‐dimensional analytic solutions. We show that, depending on which type of boundary condition is used, the FD‐MIC scheme is a second‐order accurate in space as long as the viscosity field is constant or smooth (i.e., continuous). With the introduction of a discontinuous viscosity field characterized by a viscosity jump (η*) within the control volume, the scheme becomes first‐order accurate. We observed that the transition from second‐order to first‐order accuracy will occur with only a small increase in the viscosity contrast (η* ≈ 5). We have employed two methods for projecting the material properties from the Lagrangian markers onto the Eulerian nodes. The methods are based on the size of the interpolation volume (4‐cell, 1‐cell). The use of a more local interpolation scheme (1‐cell) decreases the absolute velocity and pressure discretization errors. We also introduce a stabilization algorithm that damps the potential oscillations that may arise from quasi free surface calculations in numerical codes that employ the strong form of the Stokes equations. This correction term is of particular interest for topographic modeling, since the surface of the Earth is generally represented by a free surface. Including the stabilization enables physically meaningful solutions to be obtained from our simulations, even in cases where the time step value exceeds the isostatic relaxation time. We show that including the stabilization algorithm in our FD stencil does not affect the convergence properties of our scheme. In order to verify our approach, we performed time‐dependent simulations of free surface Rayleigh‐Taylor instability. Key Points Error analysis of the finite difference and marker‐in‐cell method Methodology for computing convergence properties of a scheme Free surface stabilization algorithm for finite difference Stokes flow</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/2011GC003567</doi><tpages>26</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1525-2027
ispartof Geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems : G3, 2011-07, Vol.12 (7), p.np-n/a
issn 1525-2027
1525-2027
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1654693524
source Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Collection
subjects Algorithms
Boundary conditions
convergence
Discretization
Error analysis
finite difference
free surface
Free surfaces
Geodynamics
Geophysics
High performance computing
marker-in-cell
Mathematical analysis
Mathematical models
Mathematics
Stabilization
Viscosity
title Discretization errors and free surface stabilization in the finite difference and marker-in-cell method for applied geodynamics: A numerical study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T21%3A49%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Discretization%20errors%20and%20free%20surface%20stabilization%20in%20the%20finite%20difference%20and%20marker-in-cell%20method%20for%20applied%20geodynamics:%20A%20numerical%20study&rft.jtitle=Geochemistry,%20geophysics,%20geosystems%20:%20G3&rft.au=Duretz,%20T.&rft.date=2011-07&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=np&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=np-n/a&rft.issn=1525-2027&rft.eissn=1525-2027&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2011GC003567&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_24P%3E1221862633%3C/proquest_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=875677384&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true