-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
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
Implementation of Finite-Difference formulation #474
Conversation
Is this ready for a review, or is this still work-in-progress? |
Hi Nick,
I'd like to wait until Philipp is done with the anelastic, MHD Benchmark
run. He should be done by next week and I will let you know when it's ready
for review.
Cheers,
Rathish.
…On Sat, 17 Jun 2023, 07:49 Nick Featherstone, ***@***.***> wrote:
Is this ready for a review, or is this still work-in-progress?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#474 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A4B2HVUSQ5QI733SZB5NRY3XLWYVZANCNFSM6AAAAAAZJPR75I>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
These are the results of a long, anelastic finite difference run with MHD. It ran for 6.1e8 s. The results look pretty good to me.
|
Hi,
I think it's good to go for a review then :).
Cheers,
Rathish
…On Mon, 19 Jun 2023, 14:23 Philipp Edelmann, ***@***.***> wrote:
These are the results of a long, anelastic finite difference run with MHD.
It ran for 6.1e8 s. The results look pretty good to me.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
RAYLEIGH ACCURACY BENCHMARK SUMMARY
Benchmark: Jones et al. 2001 (Steady Dynamo Case)
Radial Resolution N_R = 128
Angular Resolution N_theta = 192
Averaging Interval (seconds) : 1.800000E+05
Beginning Iteration : 3085100
Ending Iteration : 3086000
Number of Samples : 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observable | Measured | Suggested | % Difference | Std. Dev.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinetic Energy : 8.119345E+36 8.036230E+36 1.034251E+00 1.587161E+32
Zonal KE : 1.187032E+36 1.153180E+36 2.935532E+00 6.838595E+31
Meridional KE : 1.029017E+33 1.015870E+33 1.294139E+00 2.528745E+28
Magnetic Energy : 6.019203E+36 6.133330E+36 -1.860765E+00 2.446445E+32
Zonal ME : 4.520376E+36 4.620460E+36 -2.166101E+00 2.100449E+32
Meridional ME : 3.147325E+35 3.249270E+35 -3.137471E+00 2.154197E+31
Entropy : 6.111929E+05 6.089300E+05 3.716264E-01 1.827545E-01
Vphi : -2.998166E+03 -2.942200E+03 1.902197E+00 3.806120E-02
Btheta : 2.602995E+02 2.729200E+02 -4.624238E+00 5.981200E-03
Drift Frequency : 4.296363E-06 4.307600E-06 -2.608559E-01 2.182600E-11
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#474 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A4B2HVUVEC4SY6FVNJNE2KDXMBHERANCNFSM6AAAAAAZJPR75I>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
The results look good to me as well. The drift frequency is particularly hard to get correct if something is off. Did that run use the strict_L_conservation flag? Since this will be need a pretty lengthy read through, it will probably be next week before I can do a careful code review. |
Oh. One additional request. Can you possibly run this with 200 radial points (uniform grid) and see what the results look like? I seem to recall that that's the number we used with ASH several years ago, and I think most of the numbers were spot on at that resolution. |
Yes, that flag was switched on. |
This is what I'm getting for 200 radial points. Looks like we're really close to the expected result.
|
Awesome. OK, I will do a code review next week once I'm freed from proposal purgatory this Friday! |
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.
This looks good. I have three small requested changes:
1.) Can you fix the indent on line 54 of Sphere_Spectral_Space.F90?
2.) Could you provide the FD input file that you used to pass the Jone MHD benchmark?
3.) Can you provide a summary of the various new input parameter names and what they do? Once I have that info and an example input file, I can write a short blurb in the documentation about the 4th-order FD method and submit that as a separate PR..
Hi Nick,
I have fixed the indent now. Do I need to resend the PR?
I have attached the main_input file used for the Jones MHD benchmark. Two
main input parameters that are used for this formulation are
“chebyshev=false" and “dr_input”. FD is activated automatically when
chebyshev is set to false. When dr_input in problemsize_namelist is not
specified, a uniform grid is automatically calculated, so Delta_r in the
code is set to a constant value. When dr_input is specified, the number of
dr_input values must match n_r. Fortran syntax such as 200*some_dr_value
can be used with comma separation.
That should be all of them. Please let me know if you need any more
information.
Cheers,
Rathish
…On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 5:31 PM Nick Featherstone ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** requested changes on this pull request.
This looks good. I have three small requested changes:
1.) Can you fix the indent on line 54 of Sphere_Spectral_Space.F90?
2.) Could you provide the FD input file that you used to pass the Jone MHD
benchmark?
3.) Can you provide a summary of the various new input parameter names and
what they do? Once I have that info and an example input file, I can write
a short blurb in the documentation about the 4th-order FD method and submit
that as a separate PR..
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#474 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A4B2HVSO7OZ5OWWWHOWA3TLXNMDGBANCNFSM6AAAAAAZJPR75I>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Cheers,
Rathish Previn Ratnasingam
PhD Applied Mathematics (Newcastle University)
MSc Theoretical Physics(University of Edinburgh)
BSc Physics(Imperial College London)
|
Hey Rathish. I'm still not seeing the input files. If you place them Rayleigh/input_examples on your branch and commit/push, they should appear here without the need to initiate another PR. |
Hi Nick,
Just did this and checked. It should be labelled
as main_input_mhd_jones_FD.
Cheers,
Rathish
…On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 2:56 PM Nick Featherstone ***@***.***> wrote:
Hey Rathish. I'm still not seeing the input files. If you place them
Rayleigh/input_examples on your branch and commit/push, they should appear
here without the need to initiate another PR.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#474 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A4B2HVW2DGK6HRFBFMON4NDXNQZ2XANCNFSM6AAAAAAZJPR75I>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Cheers,
Rathish Previn Ratnasingam
PhD Applied Mathematics (Newcastle University)
MSc Theoretical Physics(University of Edinburgh)
BSc Physics(Imperial College London)
|
Wonderful! Merging now. Thanks for the hard work on this! |
Added all the necessary changes required to run the benchmarks on uniform FD grids when
dr_input
is not specified. Whendr_input
is specified using Fortran-based syntax in the main_input file, Rayleigh can be run with a non-uniform grid. Currently, when thechebyshev
flag is set to false, finite-difference is activated.