[aspect-devel] cylindrical rigid body rotation

Thieulot, C. (Cedric) c.thieulot at uu.nl
Tue Mar 4 05:09:43 PST 2014


I am not sure I have a strong opinion concerning this issue. The reason I suddenly need it is because of the 2D cylindrical 
benchmark initiated by Rhodri Davies. There are many experiments in their study and I do not intend to do them all. 
However I am stuck at the second experiment because the net rotation of course perturbs my Vrms measurements. 
Since there does not seem to be a consensus in the community, I think implementing both sounds logical, even more so 
that they are not fundamentally different. 
I have implemented the no net rotation formula that Ian mentions and it works fine (in the context of this particular benchmark). 

On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Rene Gassmoeller wrote:

> Well in a physical sense the removal of the angular momentum seems to be
> the more appropriate approach, however there might be reasons for
> removing only the rigid body rotation, e.g. there are several
> lithosphere reference frames assuming no net rotation (of the
> lithosphere). CitcomS implements both as separate options. Would it be
> complicated to offer both options in ASPECT as well?
> Cheers,
> Rene
> On 03/03/2014 10:41 PM, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>> I don't know. If the density is constant, the two are equivalent. Either
>> is fine to remove the null space. My inclination would be to remove the
>> physical angular momentum. Do any of you geoscientists have preferences?
>> Cedric?
> _______________________________________________
> Aspect-devel mailing list
> Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org
> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aspect-devel

More information about the Aspect-devel mailing list