[aspect-devel] Zhong et al. (2008) topography and geoid benchmark

[Scott King]

I responded to Jacky and not to all.  We’ve tried the Zhong problems again (post 12/31/16) with the new Bousinessq model, and the results are not quite as good as previous (the mystery continues).  I don’t know if there is something we have not thought about that is a trick here.  We use the simple model and the case we are looking at is constant viscosity, so...  We went back to all parameters = 1 and gravity=Ra.   I don’t know if we should be using alpha = 10-2 and gravity=Ra*1e2 with the Business model.   I would have thought not.  Grants Bousinessq  results are not as good as the original version with alpha = 10-2 and gravity=Ra*1e2   We’ve noticed no real benefit to being dimensional either.

Grant is presently trying the Davies et al cylindrical benchmarks (with the distributed prm file) just to confirm his newly built version of Aspect will reproduce those results.   

I notice some parameters that look like they are dealing with convergence in the Davies et al prm file that is included in the distribution.   Is there any insight on those?   I don’t have the source on the machine I have e-mail so I can’t send.  Thought this might ring a bell.

Best,

Scott


> On Jan 24, 2017, at 4:10 PM, Rene Gassmoeller <rene.gassmoeller at mailbox.org> wrote:
> 
> As far as I recall there have been several tries to reproduce the time-dependent setup of this benchmark, but without the option to solve the exact boussinesq approximation we always had trouble to reproduce the vrms velocity to better than 5% or so. The most recent and extensive try was done by Scott and Grant Euen (presented at Grant's poster at AGU). I am not sure if anyone tried the Stokes flow / topography / geoid setup though, at least I did not, and I agree with John it might be very useful to have those.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rene
> 
> 
> On 01/24/2017 11:31 AM, John Naliboff wrote:
>> Hi Jacky,
>> 
>> I don't recall that benchmark being done with ASPECT, but it would indeed be great to do it.  If access to computing time for some of the high resolution runs would be helpful, just let me know and we can get you access to the CIG resources on STAMPEDE.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> John
>>  
>>  *************************************************
>> John Naliboff
>> Assistant Project Scientist, CIG
>> Earth & Planetary Sciences Dept., UC Davis
>> On 01/24/2017 02:17 AM, Jacky Austermann wrote:
>>> Hi group,
>>> 
>>> Has anyone done / tried the Zhong et al. (2008) G3 benchmarks for surface and CMB topography? If this hasn’t been done and people think it’s worthwhile I’d be happy to give it a shot. This might also be a possibility to test the geoid post processors that people worked on during the last hackathon. Ian and Shangxin, if you’re willing to share I could test your geoid post processors (just let me know if the ones that are on your github repositories are up to date or update them if they aren’t).
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jacky
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Aspect-devel mailing list
>>> Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org <mailto:Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org>
>>> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aspect-devel <http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aspect-devel>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aspect-devel mailing list
>> Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org <mailto:Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org>
>> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aspect-devel <http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aspect-devel>
> _______________________________________________
> Aspect-devel mailing list
> Aspect-devel at geodynamics.org
> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aspect-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geodynamics.org/pipermail/aspect-devel/attachments/20170124/e7402338/attachment.html>