Articles | Volume 11, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1497-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1497-2018
Development and technical paper
 | 
17 Apr 2018
Development and technical paper |  | 17 Apr 2018

Implicit–explicit (IMEX) Runge–Kutta methods for non-hydrostatic atmospheric models

David J. Gardner, Jorge E. Guerra, François P. Hamon, Daniel R. Reynolds, Paul A. Ullrich, and Carol S. Woodward

Related authors

DCMIP2016: the tropical cyclone test case
Justin L. Willson, Kevin A. Reed, Christiane Jablonowski, James Kent, Peter H. Lauritzen, Ramachandran Nair, Mark A. Taylor, Paul A. Ullrich, Colin M. Zarzycki, David M. Hall, Don Dazlich, Ross Heikes, Celal Konor, David Randall, Thomas Dubos, Yann Meurdesoif, Xi Chen, Lucas Harris, Christian Kühnlein, Vivian Lee, Abdessamad Qaddouri, Claude Girard, Marco Giorgetta, Daniel Reinert, Hiroaki Miura, Tomoki Ohno, and Ryuji Yoshida
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2493–2507, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Numerical coupling of aerosol emissions, dry removal, and turbulent mixing in the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) – Part 1: Dust budget analyses and the impacts of a revised coupling scheme
Hui Wan, Kai Zhang, Christopher J. Vogl, Carol S. Woodward, Richard C. Easter, Philip J. Rasch, Yan Feng, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1387–1407, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1387-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Numerical coupling of aerosol emissions, dry removal, and turbulent mixing in the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) – Part 2: A semi-discrete error analysis framework for assessing coupling schemes
Christopher J. Vogl, Hui Wan, Carol S. Woodward, and Quan M. Bui
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1409–1428, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1409-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1409-2024, 2024
Short summary
rSHUD v2.0: advancing the Simulator for Hydrologic Unstructured Domains and unstructured hydrological modeling in the R environment
Lele Shu, Paul Ullrich, Xianhong Meng, Christopher Duffy, Hao Chen, and Zhaoguo Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 497–527, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-497-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-497-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluating precipitation distributions at regional scales: a benchmarking framework and application to CMIP5 and 6 models
Min-Seop Ahn, Paul A. Ullrich, Peter J. Gleckler, Jiwoo Lee, Ana C. Ordonez, and Angeline G. Pendergrass
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3927–3951, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Numerical methods
Numerical stabilization methods for level-set-based ice front migration
Gong Cheng, Mathieu Morlighem, and G. Hilmar Gudmundsson
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6227–6247, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6227-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6227-2024, 2024
Short summary
Modelling chemical advection during magma ascent
Hugo Dominguez, Nicolas Riel, and Pierre Lanari
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6105–6122, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6105-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6105-2024, 2024
Short summary
Consistent point data assimilation in Firedrake and Icepack
Reuben W. Nixon-Hill, Daniel Shapero, Colin J. Cotter, and David A. Ham
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5369–5386, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5369-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5369-2024, 2024
Short summary
A computationally efficient parameterization of aerosol, cloud and precipitation pH for application at global and regional scale (EQSAM4Clim-v12)
Swen Metzger, Samuel Rémy, Jason E. Williams, Vincent Huijnen, and Johannes Flemming
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5009–5021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5009-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5009-2024, 2024
Short summary
Assessing the benefits of approximately exact step sizes for Picard and Newton solver in simulating ice flow (FEniCS-full-Stokes v.1.3.2)
Niko Schmidt, Angelika Humbert, and Thomas Slawig
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4943–4959, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4943-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4943-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Anderson, E., Bai, Z., Bischof, C., Blackford, S., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., Du Croz, J., Greenbaum, A., Hammarling, S., McKenney, A., and Sorensen, D.: LAPACK Users' Guide, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 3rd Edn., Philadelphia, PA, 425 pp., 1999.
Ascher, U. M., Ruuth, S. J., and Spiteri, R. J.: Implicit-explicit Runge–Kutta methods for time-dependent partial differential equations, Appl. Numer. Math., 25, 151–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9274(97)00056-1, 1997.
Conde, S., Gottlieb, S., Grant, Z. J., and Shadid, J. N.: Implicit and Implicit–Explicit Strong Stability Preserving Runge–Kutta Methods with High Linear Order, J. Sci. Comput., 73, 667–690, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-017-0560-2, 2017.
Devore, J. L.: Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences, 7th Edn., Thomson Brooks/Cole, 736 pp., 2008.
Download
Short summary
As the computational power of supercomputing systems increases, and models for simulating the fluid flow of the Earth's atmosphere operate at higher resolutions, new approaches for advancing these models in time will be necessary. In order to produce the best possible result in the least amount of time, we evaluate a number of splittings, methods, and solvers on two test cases. Based on these results, we identify the most accurate and efficient approaches for consideration in production models.