README.md

PySDM-examples

no-model examples depicting isotope-related formulae:

• Merlivat & Nief 1967:
  • Fig. 2:
• Miyake et al. 1968:
  • Fig. 19:
• Van Hook 1968:
  • Fig. 1:
• Gedzelman & Arnold 1994:
  • Fig. 2:
• Bolot et al. 2013:
  • Fig. 1:
• Graf et al. 2019:
  • Table. 1:
• Lamb et al. 2017:
  • Fig. 4:
• Pierchala et al. 2022:
  • Fig. 3:
  • Fig. 4:

0D box-model coalescence and breakup examples:

• Shima et al. 2009 (Box model, coalescence only, test case employing Golovin analytical solution):

  • Fig. 2:

• Berry 1967 (Box model, coalescence only, test cases for realistic kernels):

  • Figs. 5, 8 & 10:

• Bieli et al. 2022 (Box model, coalescence and breakup with fixed coalescence efficiency):

  • Fig. 3:

• deJong et al. 2023 (Box model, coalescence and breakup):

  • Figs. 3-5 (validation against Srivastava 1982 analytic solution):
  • Figs. 6-8 (Berry 1967 coalescence efficiency):

• deJong and Azimi (Ongoing research: Box model, coalescence only):

  • Figs. 1-2 (validation of moment-based method against PySDM with Golovin and Geometric kernels):

0D box-model immersion freezing-only examples:

• Alpert & Knopf 2016 (stochastic immersion freezing with monodisperse vs. lognormal immersed surface areas):
  • Fig. 1:
  • Fig. 2:
  • Fig. 3:
  • Fig. 4:
  • Fig. 5:
• Arabas et al. 2023 (singular vs. time-dependent immersion freezing)
  • Fig. 2:
  • Figs. 3, 7, 8:
  • Figs. 5, 6:

0D parcel-model condensation only examples:

• Arabas & Shima 2017 (monodisperse size spectrum activation/deactivation test case):

  • Fig. 5:

• Yang et al. 2018 (polydisperse size spectrum activation/deactivation test case):

  • Fig. 2:

• Abdul-Razzak & Ghan 2000 (aerosol activation parameterization for GCMs):

  • Figs. 1 - 5:

• Pyrcel documentation example (externally mixed polydisperse size spectrum activation test case):

  • supersaturation, temperature, wet radii evolution and dry spectra plots:

• Lowe et al. 2019 (externally mixed polydisperse size spectrum with surface-active organics case):

  • Fig. 1:
  • Fig. 2:
  • Fig. 3:

• Grabowski & Pawlowska 2023 (polydisperse size spectrum activation test case):

  • Fig. 1:
  • Fig. 2:
  • Fig. 3:
  • Fig. 4:

• Jensen & Nugent 2017 (multi-modal + GCCN measurement-based spectrum, updraft-downdraft cycle):

  • Fig. 1:
  • Fig. 3 and Tab. 4 (upper rows):
  • Fig. 4 and 7, Tab. 4 (bottom rows):
  • Fig. 5:
  • Fig. 6:
  • Fig. 8:

0D parcel-model condensation/aqueous-chemistry example:

• Kreidenweis et al. 2003 (Adiabatic parcel, polydisperse size spectrum, aqueous‐phase SO2 oxidation test case):
  • Fig 1:
• Jaruga and Pawlowska 2018 (same test case as above, different numerical settings):
  • Fig 2:
  • Fig 3:

1D kinematic (prescribed-flow, single-column):

• Shipway & Hill 2012:

  • Fig 1 (thermodynamics/condensation only, no particle displacement yet):
    

• deJong et al. 2023 (Kinematic setup as in Shipway and Hill, including breakup with Berry 1967 coalescence efficiency):

  • Figs. 6-8:

• deJong and Azimi (Ongoing research: Similar kinematic setup as in Shipway and Hill, but with no condensation (coalescence only) and with power-series representation of the terminal velocity):

  • Fig 3:

2D kinematic (prescribed-flow) Sc-mimicking aerosol collisional processing (warm-rain) examples:

• Arabas et al. 2015

  • Figs. 8 & 9 (interactive web-GUI with product selection, parameter sliders and netCDF/plot export buttons):
    

• Bartman et al. (in preparation):

  • Fig 1 (default-settings based script generating a netCDF file and loading it subsequently to create the animation below):
    
  • Fig 2:
  • Fig 3:

• Arabas et al. 2023 (singular vs. time-dependent immersion freezing)

  • Fig. 11: