-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 106
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
adding semi-implicit scheme #1507
adding semi-implicit scheme #1507
Conversation
Now the diagnostics are calculated using |
I now added tests using HEF. For this, I adapted the test glacier directory ( Probably some of my included tests need to be adapted when |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fantastic! Please just check camelcase parts of code and this is good to go - can't wait to use it!!!!
In this PR I added the semi-implicit numeric scheme developed by @dngoldberg.
I also added the scheme to the idealised test cases. Further, I compared the FluxBasedModel and the SemiImplicitModel on a mixed flowline with different lambdas along the flowline (including a mixture of rectangular and trapezoidal).
Some comments and things to discuss:
test_min_slope
you can nicely see the instability differences in the slope plottest_cliff
the volume difference to the MUSCLSuperBeeModel is only the half for the SemiImplicitModel compared to the FluxBasedModel, but it looks like their are some instabilities you can see in the surface_h plot for the SemiImplicitModel, maybe something to have a closer lookI have not included a test for the sliding parameterI have not included tests on real glacier geometry (could also include sliding tests there), what would be the most important real geometry tests?currently, some diagnostics are calculated each timestep, which are actually not needed. They could be calculated somewhere else for increasing the performanceToDo:
whats-new.rst