Articles | Volume 11, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4069-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4069-2018
Model evaluation paper
 | 
10 Oct 2018
Model evaluation paper |  | 10 Oct 2018

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

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

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
On the use of Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI) spectrally resolved radiances to test the EC-Earth climate model (v3.3.3) in clear-sky conditions
Stefano Della Fera, Federico Fabiano, Piera Raspollini, Marco Ridolfi, Ugo Cortesi, Flavio Barbara, and Jost von Hardenberg
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1379–1394, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1379-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1379-2023, 2023
Short summary
Incorporation of aerosol into the COSPv2 satellite lidar simulator for climate model evaluation
Marine Bonazzola, Hélène Chepfer, Po-Lun Ma, Johannes Quaas, David M. Winker, Artem Feofilov, and Nick Schutgens
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1359–1377, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1359-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1359-2023, 2023
Short summary
The impact of altering emission data precision on compression efficiency and accuracy of simulations of the community multiscale air quality model
Michael S. Walters and David C. Wong
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1179–1190, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1179-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1179-2023, 2023
Short summary
AerSett v1.0: a simple and straightforward model for the settling speed of big spherical atmospheric aerosols
Sylvain Mailler, Laurent Menut, Arineh Cholakian, and Romain Pennel
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1119–1127, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1119-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1119-2023, 2023
Short summary
Optimization of weather forecasting for cloud cover over the European domain using the meteorological component of the Ensemble for Stochastic Integration of Atmospheric Simulations version 1.0
Yen-Sen Lu, Garrett H. Good, and Hendrik Elbern
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1083–1104, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1083-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1083-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Abkar, M. and Porté-Agel, F.: Mean and turbulent kinetic energy budgets inside and above very large wind farms under conventionally-neutral condition, Renew. Energ., 70, 142–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.050, 2014. a
Albertson, J. D.: Large Eddy Simulation of Land-Atmosphere Interaction, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Davis, Hydrol. Sci., an optional note, 1996. a
Albertson, J. D. and Parlange, M. B.: Natural integration of scalar fluxes from complex terrain, Adv. Water Resour., 23, 239–252, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(99)00011-1, 1999. a, b
Albertson, J. D., Parlange, M. B., Katul, G. G., Chu, C.- R., Stricker, H., and Tyler, S.: Sensible Heat Flux From Arid Regions: A Simple Flux-Variance Method, Water Resour. Res., 31, 969973, https://doi.org/10.1029/94WR02978, 1995. a
Allaerts, D. and Meyers, J.: Boundary-layer development and gravity waves in conventionally neutral wind farms, J. Fluid Mechan., 814, 95–130, https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2017.11, 2017. a
Download
Short summary
In this project, we compare three different approaches to integrate the fluid-motion equations when applied to solve atmospheric flow dynamics. Differences between the three methods reside in accuracy as well as computational cost. The results illustrate that there is an intermediate solution that performs well in terms of computational cost while at the same time producing good enough results, as long one is not interested in the smallest turbulent scales.