Comparison of dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation of neutrally stratified atmospheric flows

Fabien Margairaz, Marco G. Giometto, Marc B. Parlange, Marc Calaf

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Aliasing errors arise in the multiplication of partial sums, such as those encountered when numerically solving the Navier-Stokes equations, and can be detrimental to the accuracy of a numerical solution. In this work, a performance and cost analysis is proposed for widely used dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation, focusing on a neutrally stratified, pressure-driven atmospheric boundary-layer flow. Specifically, the exact 3/2 rule, the Fourier truncation method, and a high-order Fourier smoothing method are intercompared. Tests are performed within a newly developed mixed pseudo-spectral finite differences large-eddy simulation code, parallelized using a two-dimensional pencil decomposition. A series of simulations are performed at varying resolution, and key flow statistics are intercompared among the considered runs and dealiasing schemes. The three dealiasing methods compare well in terms of first- and second-order statistics for the considered cases, with modest local departures that decrease as the grid stencil is reduced. Computed velocity spectra using the 3/2 rule and the FS method are in good agreement, whereas the FT method yields a spurious energy redistribution across wavenumbers that compromises both the energy-containing and inertial sublayer trends. The main advantage of the FS and FT methods when compared to the 3/2 rule is a notable reduction in computational cost, with larger savings as the resolution is increased (15% for a resolution of 1283, up to a theoretical 30% for a resolution of 20483).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4069-4084
Number of pages16
JournalGeoscientific Model Development
Volume11
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Oct 2018

Cite this

Margairaz, Fabien ; Giometto, Marco G. ; Parlange, Marc B. ; Calaf, Marc. / Comparison of dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation of neutrally stratified atmospheric flows. In: Geoscientific Model Development. 2018 ; Vol. 11, No. 10. pp. 4069-4084.
@article{037ad2151e594cefa36f92ee5cea595d,
title = "Comparison of dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation of neutrally stratified atmospheric flows",
abstract = "Aliasing errors arise in the multiplication of partial sums, such as those encountered when numerically solving the Navier-Stokes equations, and can be detrimental to the accuracy of a numerical solution. In this work, a performance and cost analysis is proposed for widely used dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation, focusing on a neutrally stratified, pressure-driven atmospheric boundary-layer flow. Specifically, the exact 3/2 rule, the Fourier truncation method, and a high-order Fourier smoothing method are intercompared. Tests are performed within a newly developed mixed pseudo-spectral finite differences large-eddy simulation code, parallelized using a two-dimensional pencil decomposition. A series of simulations are performed at varying resolution, and key flow statistics are intercompared among the considered runs and dealiasing schemes. The three dealiasing methods compare well in terms of first- and second-order statistics for the considered cases, with modest local departures that decrease as the grid stencil is reduced. Computed velocity spectra using the 3/2 rule and the FS method are in good agreement, whereas the FT method yields a spurious energy redistribution across wavenumbers that compromises both the energy-containing and inertial sublayer trends. The main advantage of the FS and FT methods when compared to the 3/2 rule is a notable reduction in computational cost, with larger savings as the resolution is increased (15{\%} for a resolution of 1283, up to a theoretical 30{\%} for a resolution of 20483).",
author = "Fabien Margairaz and Giometto, {Marco G.} and Parlange, {Marc B.} and Marc Calaf",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "10",
doi = "10.5194/gmd-11-4069-2018",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "4069--4084",
journal = "Geoscientific Model Development",
issn = "1991-959X",
publisher = "European Geosciences Union",
number = "10",

}

Comparison of dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation of neutrally stratified atmospheric flows. / Margairaz, Fabien; Giometto, Marco G.; Parlange, Marc B.; Calaf, Marc.

In: Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11, No. 10, 10.10.2018, p. 4069-4084.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation of neutrally stratified atmospheric flows

AU - Margairaz, Fabien

AU - Giometto, Marco G.

AU - Parlange, Marc B.

AU - Calaf, Marc

PY - 2018/10/10

Y1 - 2018/10/10

N2 - Aliasing errors arise in the multiplication of partial sums, such as those encountered when numerically solving the Navier-Stokes equations, and can be detrimental to the accuracy of a numerical solution. In this work, a performance and cost analysis is proposed for widely used dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation, focusing on a neutrally stratified, pressure-driven atmospheric boundary-layer flow. Specifically, the exact 3/2 rule, the Fourier truncation method, and a high-order Fourier smoothing method are intercompared. Tests are performed within a newly developed mixed pseudo-spectral finite differences large-eddy simulation code, parallelized using a two-dimensional pencil decomposition. A series of simulations are performed at varying resolution, and key flow statistics are intercompared among the considered runs and dealiasing schemes. The three dealiasing methods compare well in terms of first- and second-order statistics for the considered cases, with modest local departures that decrease as the grid stencil is reduced. Computed velocity spectra using the 3/2 rule and the FS method are in good agreement, whereas the FT method yields a spurious energy redistribution across wavenumbers that compromises both the energy-containing and inertial sublayer trends. The main advantage of the FS and FT methods when compared to the 3/2 rule is a notable reduction in computational cost, with larger savings as the resolution is increased (15% for a resolution of 1283, up to a theoretical 30% for a resolution of 20483).

AB - Aliasing errors arise in the multiplication of partial sums, such as those encountered when numerically solving the Navier-Stokes equations, and can be detrimental to the accuracy of a numerical solution. In this work, a performance and cost analysis is proposed for widely used dealiasing schemes in large-eddy simulation, focusing on a neutrally stratified, pressure-driven atmospheric boundary-layer flow. Specifically, the exact 3/2 rule, the Fourier truncation method, and a high-order Fourier smoothing method are intercompared. Tests are performed within a newly developed mixed pseudo-spectral finite differences large-eddy simulation code, parallelized using a two-dimensional pencil decomposition. A series of simulations are performed at varying resolution, and key flow statistics are intercompared among the considered runs and dealiasing schemes. The three dealiasing methods compare well in terms of first- and second-order statistics for the considered cases, with modest local departures that decrease as the grid stencil is reduced. Computed velocity spectra using the 3/2 rule and the FS method are in good agreement, whereas the FT method yields a spurious energy redistribution across wavenumbers that compromises both the energy-containing and inertial sublayer trends. The main advantage of the FS and FT methods when compared to the 3/2 rule is a notable reduction in computational cost, with larger savings as the resolution is increased (15% for a resolution of 1283, up to a theoretical 30% for a resolution of 20483).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054688241&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5194/gmd-11-4069-2018

DO - 10.5194/gmd-11-4069-2018

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 4069

EP - 4084

JO - Geoscientific Model Development

JF - Geoscientific Model Development

SN - 1991-959X

IS - 10

ER -