On the Quality of Velocity Interpolation Schemes for Marker-in-Cell Method and Staggered Grids

The marker-in-cell method is generally considered a flexible and robust method to model the advection of heterogenous non-diffusive properties (i.e., rock type or composition) in geodynamic problems. In this method, Lagrangian points carrying compositional information are advected with the ambient velocity field on an Eulerian grid. However, velocity interpolation from grid points to marker locations is often performed without considering the divergence of the velocity field at the interpolated locations (i.e., non-conservative). Such interpolation schemes can induce non-physical clustering of markers when strong velocity gradients are present (Journal of Computational Physics 166:218–252, 2001) and this may, eventually, result in empty grid cells, a serious numerical violation of the marker-in-cell method. To remedy this at low computational costs, Jenny et al. (Journal of Computational Physics 166:218–252, 2001) and Meyer and Jenny (Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 4:466–467, 2004) proposed a simple, conservative velocity interpolation scheme for 2-D staggered grid, while Wang et al. (Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 16(6):2015–2023, 2015) extended the formulation to 3-D finite element methods. Here, we adapt this formulation for 3-D staggered grids (correction interpolation) and we report on the quality of various velocity interpolation methods for 2-D and 3-D staggered grids. We test the interpolation schemes in combination with different advection schemes on incompressible Stokes problems with strong velocity gradients, which are discretized using a finite difference method. Our results suggest that a conservative formulation reduces the dispersion and clustering of markers, minimizing the need of unphysical marker control in geodynamic models.

[1]  P. Sava,et al.  Forward and inverse modeling , 2015 .

[2]  Taras Gerya,et al.  A comparison of numerical surface topography calculations in geodynamic modelling: an evaluation of the ‘sticky air’ method , 2012 .

[3]  D. May,et al.  A free surface capturing discretization for the staggered grid finite difference scheme , 2016 .

[4]  S. Zhong,et al.  The influence of thermochemical convection on the fixity of mantle plumes , 2004 .

[5]  Francis H. Harlow,et al.  The Particle-In-Cell Method for Hydrodynamic Calculations , 1957 .

[6]  A. Kent,et al.  Origin of minor and trace element compositional diversity in anorthitic feldspar phenocrysts and melt inclusions from the Juan de Fuca Ridge , 2011 .

[7]  Paul J. Tackley,et al.  Testing the tracer ratio method for modeling active compositional fields in mantle convection simulations , 2003 .

[8]  Louis Moresi,et al.  The accuracy of finite element solutions of Stokes's flow with strongly varying viscosity , 1996 .

[9]  Boris J. P. Kaus,et al.  A stabilization algorithm for geodynamic numerical simulations with a free surface , 2010 .

[10]  Y. Mishin Adaptive multiresolution methods for problems of computational geodynamics , 2012 .

[11]  Louis Moresi,et al.  A Fast Robust Algorithm for Computing Discrete Voronoi Diagrams , 2009, J. Math. Model. Algorithms.

[12]  Giorgio Ranalli,et al.  Rheology of the earth , 1987 .

[13]  P. Tackley,et al.  Computational Methods for Geodynamics: Finite volume method , 2010 .

[14]  P. Jenny,et al.  Conservative Velocity Interpolation for PDF Methods , 2004 .

[15]  Gabriele Morra,et al.  A benchmark comparison of spontaneous subduction models – towards a free surface , 2008 .

[16]  Taras Gerya,et al.  Discretization errors and free surface stabilization in the finite difference and marker‐in‐cell method for applied geodynamics: A numerical study , 2011 .

[17]  Y. Rosenthal,et al.  Orbital and suborbital climate variability in the Sulu Sea, western tropical Pacific , 2003 .

[18]  W.-D. Woidt,et al.  Finite element calculations applied to salt dome analysis , 1978 .

[19]  J. van Hunen,et al.  Advantages of a conservative velocity interpolation (CVI) scheme for particle‐in‐cell methods with application in geodynamic modeling , 2015, Geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems : G(3).

[20]  Marie-Pierre Doin,et al.  A comparison of methods for the modeling of thermochemical convection , 1997 .

[21]  Shijie Zhong,et al.  Analytic solutions for Stokes' flow with lateral variations in viscosity , 1996 .

[22]  Hans Muhlhaus,et al.  A Lagrangian integration point finite element method for large deformation modeling of viscoelastic geomaterials , 2003 .

[23]  F. Harlow,et al.  Numerical Calculation of Time‐Dependent Viscous Incompressible Flow of Fluid with Free Surface , 1965 .

[24]  S. Pope,et al.  A Hybrid Algorithm for the Joint PDF Equation of Turbulent Reactive Flows , 2001 .

[25]  G. Hirth,et al.  Rheology of the Upper Mantle and the Mantle Wedge: A View from the Experimentalists , 2013 .

[26]  David A. Yuen,et al.  Characteristics-based marker-in-cell method with conservative finite-differences schemes for modeling geological flows with strongly variable transport properties , 2003 .

[27]  Taras Gerya,et al.  Introduction to Numerical Geodynamic Modelling , 2010 .

[28]  Bengt Fornberg,et al.  A practical guide to pseudospectral methods: Introduction , 1996 .

[29]  D. May,et al.  Discretization Errors in the Hybrid Finite Element Particle-in-cell Method , 2014, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[30]  J. Hunen,et al.  The effect of metastable pyroxene on the slab dynamics , 2014 .