Add P3 Sink Terms #381
Add P3 Sink Terms #381
Conversation
anastasia-popova
force-pushed
the
ap/processes
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a7d0e01
to
23123cf
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #381 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 96.96% 97.09% +0.12%
==========================================
Files 37 37
Lines 1452 1550 +98
==========================================
+ Hits 1408 1505 +97
- Misses 44 45 +1
|
anastasia-popova
changed the title
anastasia-popova
force-pushed
the
ap/processes
branch
4 times, most recently
from
04f63fd
to
0812e19
Compare
anastasia-popova
force-pushed
the
ap/processes
branch
3 times, most recently
from
697ec8d
to
ba00147
Compare
|
I think we need to make the integrals more complicated. This is because we want to use the 2M Seifert and Beheng scheme for the cloud and rain part. That means we should integrate overt the assumed 2M distributions for cloud and rain (instead of assuming continuous q). And for precipitation we need to consider the fact that rain has a terminal velocity of its own (see for example eq 25 in 1M docs. I wrote down some notes, trying to keep the notation the same as in SB and P3 scheme docs pages:
|
|
In the 1M scheme we take the velocity difference out of the integral by approximating it by the mass weighted velocity difference. Thats one way of making this simpler. The alternative is to swicth to numerical integrals, and keep the velocities in the integral |
|
Also, in the writeup, I'm not sure how the a(x, D) term would actually look for the different cross section regimes in P3. Do you have any ideas? |
trontrytel
modified the milestones:
O1.3.3 Property based snow/ice scheme,
O1.3.4 Ice nucleation scheme
anastasia-popova
force-pushed
the
ap/processes
branch
4 times, most recently
from
045993c
to
ebd6352
Compare
anastasia-popova
force-pushed
the
ap/processes
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e1469f0
to
cfa34d0
Compare
| two colliding particles | ||
| """ | ||
| function a(D1::FT, D2::FT) where {FT} | ||
| # TODO make this more accurate for non-spherical particles |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have any ideas what to assume for the other particle regimes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not have anything concrete. I was thinking finding some D' value for the regimes where the area is not in the form of D^2 such that D'^2 = D^sigma and then using D' in this calculation but I am not convinced that this would give us anything helpful.
anastasia-popova
force-pushed
the
ap/processes
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1879151
to
3d9edef
Compare
anastasia-popova
force-pushed
the
ap/processes
branch
2 times, most recently
from
aff318f
to
e3788cc
Compare
docs/src/P3Scheme.md
Outdated
| Melting rates are calculated through the following equation: | ||
|
|
||
| ```math | ||
| \frac{dq}{dt} = \frac{1}{2 \rho_a} \int_{0}^{\infty} \! \frac{dm(D)}{dt} N'(D) \mathrm{d}D |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be
| \frac{dq}{dt} = \frac{1}{2 \rho_a} \int_{0}^{\infty} \! \frac{dm(D)}{dt} N'(D) \mathrm{d}D | |
| \frac{dq}{dt} = \int_{0}^{\infty} \! \frac{dm(D)}{dt} N'(D) \mathrm{d}D |
because in the P3 scheme q is in kg/m3 we don't need to divide by air density. Maybe it would be good to write the P3 variables as rho_air q. I think this way the notation bewteen P3 and the 1M and 2M schemes would actually be consistent and we could remove one of the todos
|
I can help revive this branch after #403 is merged. Lets see if we can make this work with limiters, or if we have to do without |
anastasia-popova
force-pushed
the
ap/processes
branch
3 times, most recently
from
c46e993
to
d8fb670
Compare
Purpose
This PR aims to add the necessary collision sink terms to the P3 Scheme
To-do
Content