# Difference between revisions of "Solution of the Blatter-Pattyn model"

Line 7: | Line 7: | ||

& y:\quad 4\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\left( \eta \frac{\partial v}{\partial y} \right)+\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \eta \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} \right)+\frac{\partial }{\partial z}\left( \eta \frac{\partial v}{\partial z} \right)=-2\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\left( \eta \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} \right)-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \eta \frac{\partial u}{\partial y} \right)+\rho g\frac{\partial s}{\partial y} \\ | & y:\quad 4\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\left( \eta \frac{\partial v}{\partial y} \right)+\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \eta \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} \right)+\frac{\partial }{\partial z}\left( \eta \frac{\partial v}{\partial z} \right)=-2\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\left( \eta \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} \right)-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \eta \frac{\partial u}{\partial y} \right)+\rho g\frac{\partial s}{\partial y} \\ | ||

\end{align}</math> | \end{align}</math> | ||

− | |||

− | |||

− | |||

− | |||

− | |||

− | |||

===Coordinate Transform=== | ===Coordinate Transform=== | ||

Line 75: | Line 69: | ||

One term has become five terms and each one of those is pretty scary looking on its own. Luckily, there is also a lot of symmetry here. Notice that if we wanted to design subroutines to discretize the terms on the RHS, we could re-use a lot of them by either applying them to the correct velocity component (either to the ''u'' OR the ''v'' discretization) or by passing the appropriate arguments (pass either the grid spacing in the ''x'' direction OR the ''y'' direction, where appropriate). There is still a lot of work here ... | One term has become five terms and each one of those is pretty scary looking on its own. Luckily, there is also a lot of symmetry here. Notice that if we wanted to design subroutines to discretize the terms on the RHS, we could re-use a lot of them by either applying them to the correct velocity component (either to the ''u'' OR the ''v'' discretization) or by passing the appropriate arguments (pass either the grid spacing in the ''x'' direction OR the ''y'' direction, where appropriate). There is still a lot of work here ... | ||

+ | |||

+ | |||

+ | ===Operating Splitting=== | ||

+ | |||

+ | Again, note that for the ''x'' equation we've moved all the terms containing gradients in ''v'' to the right-hand side (RHS). | ||

+ | |||

+ | We've set it up this way in order to solve the equations using an '''operator splitting''' approach; for the ''x'' equation, we treat ''v'' as known (where we take the values of ''v'' from the previous iteration) and solve for ''u'', and vice versa when we solve they ''y'' equation for ''v''. The "splitting" refers to the fact that we are breaking the multi-dimensional divergence operation into multiple steps. Rather than solving one big matrix equation for ''u'' and ''v'' simultaneously we solve two smaller matrix equations in sequence with one of the unknowns treated as a known "source" term. | ||

## Revision as of 15:40, 11 March 2011

## Contents |

### Governing Equations

The final form of the equations we'd like to solve is:

### Coordinate Transform

As with the 0-order model, we need to change from Cartesian to sigma coordinates. The first normal-stress term first term on the left-hand side becomes

Pattyn introduces a dimensionless vertical coordinate so that variations in ice thickness do not complicate the numerical treatment considerably (Pattyn 2003). This dimensionless vertical coordinate is referred to as by Pattyn. I will refer to it as for consistency with CISM's existing notation. The rescaled coordinate is defined as:

This means that at the surface of the ice sheet , and at the base regardless of the ice thickness (Pattyn 2003). As a result of this transformation, a coordinate is mapped to (Pattyn 2003). This means that function derivatives must be re-written (using as an example) as:

Similarly for and . Pattyn simplifies this by assuming that

and

.

This assumption is valid if the bed and surface gradients are not too large (Pattyn 2003). This simplifies the above to:

Rescaling parameters , , , , and are defined. Presenting the x derivative case, as the y derivative case is analogous,

Using these, expressions for the x derivatives become:

where hatted values refer to the coordinate directions in sigma coordinates. Similarly, the first cross-stress term on the RHS is given by

One term has become five terms and each one of those is pretty scary looking on its own. Luckily, there is also a lot of symmetry here. Notice that if we wanted to design subroutines to discretize the terms on the RHS, we could re-use a lot of them by either applying them to the correct velocity component (either to the *u* OR the *v* discretization) or by passing the appropriate arguments (pass either the grid spacing in the *x* direction OR the *y* direction, where appropriate). There is still a lot of work here ...

### Operating Splitting

Again, note that for the *x* equation we've moved all the terms containing gradients in *v* to the right-hand side (RHS).

We've set it up this way in order to solve the equations using an **operator splitting** approach; for the *x* equation, we treat *v* as known (where we take the values of *v* from the previous iteration) and solve for *u*, and vice versa when we solve they *y* equation for *v*. The "splitting" refers to the fact that we are breaking the multi-dimensional divergence operation into multiple steps. Rather than solving one big matrix equation for *u* and *v* simultaneously we solve two smaller matrix equations in sequence with one of the unknowns treated as a known "source" term.

### Matrix Form

### Fixed-Point Iteration

### Final Matrix Form

Continue with the Blatter-Pattyn Boundary Conditions.

Return to Blatter-Pattyn model.