[cig-commits] r15870 - doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc

[luis at geodynamics.org]

Author: luis
Date: 2009-10-23 17:18:23 -0700 (Fri, 23 Oct 2009)
New Revision: 15870

Added:
   doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc/notes.rst
Removed:
   doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc/notes-on-mantle-convection-benchmarks.rst
Log:
Shortened long filename to mc/notes.rst

Deleted: doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc/notes-on-mantle-convection-benchmarks.rst
===================================================================
--- doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc/notes-on-mantle-convection-benchmarks.rst	2009-10-24 00:18:16 UTC (rev 15869)
+++ doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc/notes-on-mantle-convection-benchmarks.rst	2009-10-24 00:18:23 UTC (rev 15870)
@@ -1,78 +0,0 @@
-
-Notes On Mantle Convection Benchmarks
-=====================================
-
-(1) Ra = 3x10**6 (I think this is high enough to give some real time
-dependence without pushing available resolution very much).
-
-(2) Constaint properties (thermal expansivity, thermal diffusivity,
-density, gravity, viscosity, internal heat generation) to keep things
-very simple.
-
-(3) Free slip upper and lower boundaries.
-
-(4) Radius ratio = 0.546 (cmb/surface radius)
-
-(5) purely internally heated
-
-(6) insulating at cmb, constant temperature at surface
-
-(7) model resolution: 65 nodes (64 layers) radially, with some packing of
-nodes near the top and bottom boundaries. (We'll send you the actual
-radii we use, assuming you can vary them at will.)
-
-(8) initial diagnostics: (basically, these are just to get started and
-see if we're in the same universe)
-
-* (a) Nu vs. time (this should square with the internal heating in a
-  time-average sense)
-
-* (b) Radial temperature profile vs. time - this is effectively a
-  measure of the efficiency of heat transfer, or equivalent of Nu for
-  bottom heated cases.
-
-* (c) Spherical harmonic expansion of temperature field at all radial
-  levels at beginning and ending time (see below).
-
-* (d) peak velocity and peak temperature in each radial layer vs. time
-
-* (e) for now, let's ignore dynamic topography, since it's derived from
-  primitive results
-
-(9) Initial conditions and run time: This is a bit thorny, so here's a
-proposal. We can run TERRA to equilibrium under the specified model
-conditions. Equilibrium is where Nu has settled down to fluctuations
-about a steady mean value. At some point, call it time = 0.0, we'll stop
-the code and output the full temperature field in the form of a spherical
-harmonic expansion up to degree 128, which corresponds to the highest
-model resolution. We can then restart both TERRA and CitcomS using this
-spherical harmonic expansion (NOT the full temperature field at each
-node, since this would prejudice things with regard to the particular
-horizontal discretization.) Then both codes can run for a defined amount
-of model time, keeping track of Nu, peak T, and peak V as a function of
-time as indicated above. At the end of this time, or at several times
-along the way, we can output spherical harmonic representations of T at
-each layer for comparison.
-
-I added the following comments:
-
-(1) We use some analytic expressions for initial conditions (e.g., some
-radial profile superimposed with a small perturbation of a given harmonic
-function). In this way, others, if they want to benchmark their codes, do
-not need to get the Terra output. Also in case some summary report comes
-out of this effort, we can simply write down the initial conditions.
-
-(2) We aim to reproduce four benchmark cases in steady of just one. The
-four cases at the moment in my mind can be: three constant property cases
-with purely basal heating at Ra=1e5 (case 1), and Ra=1e6 (case 2), and
-purely internal heating at Ra=1e6 (case 3), and one temperature dependent
-viscosity and purely basal heating at Ra=1e6 (case 4).
-
-Case 1 will likely reach to a steady state, which is always a good thing
-for a benchmark. Cases 2 and 3 are almost identical to what you have
-suggested recently, and they are most likely time-dependent. The 1e6 Ra
-is smaller than what you suggested today but is consistent with your
-earlier suggestion. With Ra=1e6, we may not need grid refinement, which
-is also good for benchmark purposes (again, others can do it later).
-Case 4 is obviously of interest too.
-

Copied: doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc/notes.rst (from rev 15869, doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc/notes-on-mantle-convection-benchmarks.rst)
===================================================================
--- doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc/notes.rst	                        (rev 0)
+++ doc/geodynamics.org/benchmarks/trunk/mc/notes.rst	2009-10-24 00:18:23 UTC (rev 15870)
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+
+Notes On Mantle Convection Benchmarks
+=====================================
+
+(1) Ra = 3x10**6 (I think this is high enough to give some real time
+dependence without pushing available resolution very much).
+
+(2) Constaint properties (thermal expansivity, thermal diffusivity,
+density, gravity, viscosity, internal heat generation) to keep things
+very simple.
+
+(3) Free slip upper and lower boundaries.
+
+(4) Radius ratio = 0.546 (cmb/surface radius)
+
+(5) purely internally heated
+
+(6) insulating at cmb, constant temperature at surface
+
+(7) model resolution: 65 nodes (64 layers) radially, with some packing of
+nodes near the top and bottom boundaries. (We'll send you the actual
+radii we use, assuming you can vary them at will.)
+
+(8) initial diagnostics: (basically, these are just to get started and
+see if we're in the same universe)
+
+* (a) Nu vs. time (this should square with the internal heating in a
+  time-average sense)
+
+* (b) Radial temperature profile vs. time - this is effectively a
+  measure of the efficiency of heat transfer, or equivalent of Nu for
+  bottom heated cases.
+
+* (c) Spherical harmonic expansion of temperature field at all radial
+  levels at beginning and ending time (see below).
+
+* (d) peak velocity and peak temperature in each radial layer vs. time
+
+* (e) for now, let's ignore dynamic topography, since it's derived from
+  primitive results
+
+(9) Initial conditions and run time: This is a bit thorny, so here's a
+proposal. We can run TERRA to equilibrium under the specified model
+conditions. Equilibrium is where Nu has settled down to fluctuations
+about a steady mean value. At some point, call it time = 0.0, we'll stop
+the code and output the full temperature field in the form of a spherical
+harmonic expansion up to degree 128, which corresponds to the highest
+model resolution. We can then restart both TERRA and CitcomS using this
+spherical harmonic expansion (NOT the full temperature field at each
+node, since this would prejudice things with regard to the particular
+horizontal discretization.) Then both codes can run for a defined amount
+of model time, keeping track of Nu, peak T, and peak V as a function of
+time as indicated above. At the end of this time, or at several times
+along the way, we can output spherical harmonic representations of T at
+each layer for comparison.
+
+I added the following comments:
+
+(1) We use some analytic expressions for initial conditions (e.g., some
+radial profile superimposed with a small perturbation of a given harmonic
+function). In this way, others, if they want to benchmark their codes, do
+not need to get the Terra output. Also in case some summary report comes
+out of this effort, we can simply write down the initial conditions.
+
+(2) We aim to reproduce four benchmark cases in steady of just one. The
+four cases at the moment in my mind can be: three constant property cases
+with purely basal heating at Ra=1e5 (case 1), and Ra=1e6 (case 2), and
+purely internal heating at Ra=1e6 (case 3), and one temperature dependent
+viscosity and purely basal heating at Ra=1e6 (case 4).
+
+Case 1 will likely reach to a steady state, which is always a good thing
+for a benchmark. Cases 2 and 3 are almost identical to what you have
+suggested recently, and they are most likely time-dependent. The 1e6 Ra
+is smaller than what you suggested today but is consistent with your
+earlier suggestion. With Ra=1e6, we may not need grid refinement, which
+is also good for benchmark purposes (again, others can do it later).
+Case 4 is obviously of interest too.
+