[10414] | 1 | \documentclass[../main/NEMO_manual]{subfiles} |
---|
| 2 | |
---|
[6997] | 3 | \begin{document} |
---|
[2282] | 4 | |
---|
| 5 | % ================================================================ |
---|
[10501] | 6 | % Chapter 2 ——— Time Domain (step.F90) |
---|
[2282] | 7 | % ================================================================ |
---|
[10501] | 8 | \chapter{Time Domain (STP)} |
---|
[9407] | 9 | \label{chap:STP} |
---|
[11512] | 10 | \chaptertoc |
---|
[2282] | 11 | |
---|
| 12 | % Missing things: |
---|
[11263] | 13 | % - daymod: definition of the time domain (nit000, nitend and the calendar) |
---|
[2282] | 14 | |
---|
[10354] | 15 | \gmcomment{STEVEN :maybe a picture of the directory structure in the introduction which could be referred to here, |
---|
| 16 | would help ==> to be added} |
---|
[2282] | 17 | %%%% |
---|
| 18 | |
---|
| 19 | \newpage |
---|
| 20 | |
---|
[10354] | 21 | Having defined the continuous equations in \autoref{chap:PE}, we need now to choose a time discretization, |
---|
| 22 | a key feature of an ocean model as it exerts a strong influence on the structure of the computer code |
---|
[11512] | 23 | (\ie\ on its flowchart). |
---|
| 24 | In the present chapter, we provide a general description of the \NEMO\ time stepping strategy and |
---|
[10354] | 25 | the consequences for the order in which the equations are solved. |
---|
[2282] | 26 | |
---|
| 27 | % ================================================================ |
---|
| 28 | % Time Discretisation |
---|
| 29 | % ================================================================ |
---|
| 30 | \section{Time stepping environment} |
---|
[9407] | 31 | \label{sec:STP_environment} |
---|
[2282] | 32 | |
---|
[11512] | 33 | The time stepping used in \NEMO\ is a three level scheme that can be represented as follows: |
---|
[10414] | 34 | \begin{equation} |
---|
| 35 | \label{eq:STP} |
---|
[10501] | 36 | x^{t + \rdt} = x^{t - \rdt} + 2 \, \rdt \ \text{RHS}_x^{t - \rdt, \, t, \, t + \rdt} |
---|
[11512] | 37 | \end{equation} |
---|
[10354] | 38 | where $x$ stands for $u$, $v$, $T$ or $S$; |
---|
| 39 | RHS is the Right-Hand-Side of the corresponding time evolution equation; |
---|
| 40 | $\rdt$ is the time step; |
---|
| 41 | and the superscripts indicate the time at which a quantity is evaluated. |
---|
[11263] | 42 | Each term of the RHS is evaluated at a specific time stepping depending on the physics with which it is associated. |
---|
[2282] | 43 | |
---|
[11263] | 44 | The choice of the time stepping used for this evaluation is discussed below as well as |
---|
[10354] | 45 | the implications for starting or restarting a model simulation. |
---|
| 46 | Note that the time stepping calculation is generally performed in a single operation. |
---|
| 47 | With such a complex and nonlinear system of equations it would be dangerous to let a prognostic variable evolve in |
---|
| 48 | time for each term separately. |
---|
[2282] | 49 | |
---|
[10354] | 50 | The three level scheme requires three arrays for each prognostic variable. |
---|
| 51 | For each variable $x$ there is $x_b$ (before), $x_n$ (now) and $x_a$. |
---|
| 52 | The third array, although referred to as $x_a$ (after) in the code, |
---|
| 53 | is usually not the variable at the after time step; |
---|
| 54 | but rather it is used to store the time derivative (RHS in \autoref{eq:STP}) prior to time-stepping the equation. |
---|
[11512] | 55 | The time stepping itself is performed once at each time step where implicit vertical diffusion is computed, \ie\ in the \mdl{trazdf} and \mdl{dynzdf} modules. |
---|
[2282] | 56 | |
---|
| 57 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
| 58 | % Non-Diffusive Part---Leapfrog Scheme |
---|
| 59 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
[9393] | 60 | \section{Non-diffusive part --- Leapfrog scheme} |
---|
[9407] | 61 | \label{sec:STP_leap_frog} |
---|
[2282] | 62 | |
---|
[10354] | 63 | The time stepping used for processes other than diffusion is the well-known leapfrog scheme |
---|
[11263] | 64 | \citep{mesinger.arakawa_bk76}. |
---|
[10354] | 65 | This scheme is widely used for advection processes in low-viscosity fluids. |
---|
[11512] | 66 | It is a time centred scheme, \ie\ the RHS in \autoref{eq:STP} is evaluated at time step $t$, the now time step. |
---|
[10354] | 67 | It may be used for momentum and tracer advection, pressure gradient, and Coriolis terms, |
---|
| 68 | but not for diffusion terms. |
---|
| 69 | It is an efficient method that achieves second-order accuracy with |
---|
| 70 | just one right hand side evaluation per time step. |
---|
| 71 | Moreover, it does not artificially damp linear oscillatory motion nor does it produce instability by |
---|
| 72 | amplifying the oscillations. |
---|
| 73 | These advantages are somewhat diminished by the large phase-speed error of the leapfrog scheme, |
---|
| 74 | and the unsuitability of leapfrog differencing for the representation of diffusion and Rayleigh damping processes. |
---|
| 75 | However, the scheme allows the coexistence of a numerical and a physical mode due to |
---|
| 76 | its leading third order dispersive error. |
---|
| 77 | In other words a divergence of odd and even time steps may occur. |
---|
| 78 | To prevent it, the leapfrog scheme is often used in association with a Robert-Asselin time filter |
---|
| 79 | (hereafter the LF-RA scheme). |
---|
[11263] | 80 | This filter, first designed by \citet{robert_JMSJ66} and more comprehensively studied by \citet{asselin_MWR72}, |
---|
[10354] | 81 | is a kind of laplacian diffusion in time that mixes odd and even time steps: |
---|
[10414] | 82 | \begin{equation} |
---|
| 83 | \label{eq:STP_asselin} |
---|
[10501] | 84 | x_F^t = x^t + \gamma \, \lt[ x_F^{t - \rdt} - 2 x^t + x^{t + \rdt} \rt] |
---|
| 85 | \end{equation} |
---|
[10354] | 86 | where the subscript $F$ denotes filtered values and $\gamma$ is the Asselin coefficient. |
---|
| 87 | $\gamma$ is initialized as \np{rn\_atfp} (namelist parameter). |
---|
[11263] | 88 | Its default value is \np{rn\_atfp}\forcode{ = 10.e-3} (see \autoref{sec:STP_mLF}), |
---|
| 89 | causing only a weak dissipation of high frequency motions (\citep{farge-coulombier_phd87}). |
---|
[10354] | 90 | The addition of a time filter degrades the accuracy of the calculation from second to first order. |
---|
| 91 | However, the second order truncation error is proportional to $\gamma$, which is small compared to 1. |
---|
| 92 | Therefore, the LF-RA is a quasi second order accurate scheme. |
---|
| 93 | The LF-RA scheme is preferred to other time differencing schemes such as predictor corrector or trapezoidal schemes, |
---|
[11512] | 94 | because the user has an explicit and simple control of the magnitude of the time diffusion of the scheme. |
---|
[10354] | 95 | When used with the 2nd order space centred discretisation of the advection terms in |
---|
| 96 | the momentum and tracer equations, LF-RA avoids implicit numerical diffusion: |
---|
[11512] | 97 | diffusion is set explicitly by the user through the Robert-Asselin |
---|
[2282] | 98 | filter parameter and the viscosity and diffusion coefficients. |
---|
| 99 | |
---|
| 100 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
| 101 | % Diffusive Part---Forward or Backward Scheme |
---|
| 102 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
[9393] | 103 | \section{Diffusive part --- Forward or backward scheme} |
---|
[9407] | 104 | \label{sec:STP_forward_imp} |
---|
[2282] | 105 | |
---|
[10354] | 106 | The leapfrog differencing scheme is unsuitable for the representation of diffusion and damping processes. |
---|
[11263] | 107 | For a tendency $D_x$, representing a diffusion term or a restoring term to a tracer climatology |
---|
[10354] | 108 | (when present, see \autoref{sec:TRA_dmp}), a forward time differencing scheme is used : |
---|
[10414] | 109 | \[ |
---|
[10501] | 110 | %\label{eq:STP_euler} |
---|
| 111 | x^{t + \rdt} = x^{t - \rdt} + 2 \, \rdt \ D_x^{t - \rdt} |
---|
| 112 | \] |
---|
[2282] | 113 | |
---|
[10354] | 114 | This is diffusive in time and conditionally stable. |
---|
[11263] | 115 | The conditions for stability of second and fourth order horizontal diffusion schemes are \citep{griffies_bk04}: |
---|
[10414] | 116 | \begin{equation} |
---|
| 117 | \label{eq:STP_euler_stability} |
---|
[10501] | 118 | A^h < |
---|
| 119 | \begin{cases} |
---|
| 120 | \frac{e^2}{ 8 \, \rdt} & \text{laplacian diffusion} \\ |
---|
| 121 | \frac{e^4}{64 \, \rdt} & \text{bilaplacian diffusion} |
---|
| 122 | \end{cases} |
---|
[2282] | 123 | \end{equation} |
---|
[10354] | 124 | where $e$ is the smallest grid size in the two horizontal directions and $A^h$ is the mixing coefficient. |
---|
| 125 | The linear constraint \autoref{eq:STP_euler_stability} is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. |
---|
| 126 | If it is not satisfied, even mildly, then the model soon becomes wildly unstable. |
---|
| 127 | The instability can be removed by either reducing the length of the time steps or reducing the mixing coefficient. |
---|
[2282] | 128 | |
---|
[10354] | 129 | For the vertical diffusion terms, a forward time differencing scheme can be used, |
---|
[11512] | 130 | but usually the numerical stability condition imposes a strong constraint on the time step. To overcome the stability constraint, a |
---|
[11263] | 131 | backward (or implicit) time differencing scheme is used. This scheme is unconditionally stable but diffusive and can be written as follows: |
---|
[10414] | 132 | \begin{equation} |
---|
| 133 | \label{eq:STP_imp} |
---|
[10501] | 134 | x^{t + \rdt} = x^{t - \rdt} + 2 \, \rdt \ \text{RHS}_x^{t + \rdt} |
---|
| 135 | \end{equation} |
---|
[2282] | 136 | |
---|
[6140] | 137 | %%gm |
---|
| 138 | %%gm UPDATE the next paragraphs with time varying thickness ... |
---|
| 139 | %%gm |
---|
| 140 | |
---|
[11263] | 141 | This scheme is rather time consuming since it requires a matrix inversion. For example, the finite difference approximation of the temperature equation is: |
---|
[10414] | 142 | \[ |
---|
| 143 | % \label{eq:STP_imp_zdf} |
---|
[10501] | 144 | \frac{T(k)^{t + 1} - T(k)^{t - 1}}{2 \; \rdt} |
---|
| 145 | \equiv |
---|
| 146 | \text{RHS} + \frac{1}{e_{3t}} \delta_k \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vT}}{e_{3w} } \delta_{k + 1/2} \lt[ T^{t + 1} \rt] \rt] |
---|
[10414] | 147 | \] |
---|
[10354] | 148 | where RHS is the right hand side of the equation except for the vertical diffusion term. |
---|
[9407] | 149 | We rewrite \autoref{eq:STP_imp} as: |
---|
[10414] | 150 | \begin{equation} |
---|
| 151 | \label{eq:STP_imp_mat} |
---|
[10501] | 152 | -c(k + 1) \; T^{t + 1}(k + 1) + d(k) \; T^{t + 1}(k) - \; c(k) \; T^{t + 1}(k - 1) \equiv b(k) |
---|
[2282] | 153 | \end{equation} |
---|
[11512] | 154 | where |
---|
| 155 | \begin{align*} |
---|
[10414] | 156 | c(k) &= A_w^{vT} (k) \, / \, e_{3w} (k) \\ |
---|
[10501] | 157 | d(k) &= e_{3t} (k) \, / \, (2 \rdt) + c_k + c_{k + 1} \\ |
---|
| 158 | b(k) &= e_{3t} (k) \; \lt( T^{t - 1}(k) \, / \, (2 \rdt) + \text{RHS} \rt) |
---|
[2282] | 159 | \end{align*} |
---|
| 160 | |
---|
[10354] | 161 | \autoref{eq:STP_imp_mat} is a linear system of equations with an associated matrix which is tridiagonal. |
---|
| 162 | Moreover, |
---|
| 163 | $c(k)$ and $d(k)$ are positive and the diagonal term is greater than the sum of the two extra-diagonal terms, |
---|
| 164 | therefore a special adaptation of the Gauss elimination procedure is used to find the solution |
---|
[11263] | 165 | (see for example \citet{richtmyer.morton_bk67}). |
---|
[2282] | 166 | |
---|
| 167 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
[6140] | 168 | % Surface Pressure gradient |
---|
[2282] | 169 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
[9393] | 170 | \section{Surface pressure gradient} |
---|
[9407] | 171 | \label{sec:STP_spg_ts} |
---|
[2282] | 172 | |
---|
[11512] | 173 | The leapfrog environment supports a centred in time computation of the surface pressure, \ie\ evaluated |
---|
| 174 | at \textit{now} time step. This refers to as the explicit free surface case in the code (\np{ln\_dynspg\_exp}\forcode{ = .true.}). |
---|
| 175 | This choice however imposes a strong constraint on the time step which should be small enough to resolve the propagation |
---|
| 176 | of external gravity waves. As a matter of fact, one rather use in a realistic setup, a split-explicit free surface |
---|
| 177 | (\np{ln\_dynspg\_ts}\forcode{ = .true.}) in which barotropic and baroclinic dynamical equations are solved separately with ad-hoc |
---|
| 178 | time steps. The use of the time-splitting (in combination with non-linear free surface) imposes some constraints on the design of |
---|
[11263] | 179 | the overall flowchart, in particular to ensure exact tracer conservation (see \autoref{fig:TimeStep_flowchart}). |
---|
[6140] | 180 | |
---|
[11512] | 181 | Compared to the former use of the filtered free surface in \NEMO\ v3.6 (\citet{roullet.madec_JGR00}), the use of a split-explicit free surface is advantageous |
---|
| 182 | on massively parallel computers. Indeed, no global computations are anymore required by the elliptic solver which saves a substantial amount of communication |
---|
| 183 | time. Fast barotropic motions (such as tides) are also simulated with a better accuracy. |
---|
[11263] | 184 | |
---|
[11512] | 185 | %\gmcomment{ |
---|
[2282] | 186 | %>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
---|
[10354] | 187 | \begin{figure}[!t] |
---|
| 188 | \begin{center} |
---|
[11263] | 189 | \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig_TimeStepping_flowchart_v4} |
---|
[10414] | 190 | \caption{ |
---|
| 191 | \protect\label{fig:TimeStep_flowchart} |
---|
[11512] | 192 | Sketch of the leapfrog time stepping sequence in \NEMO\ with split-explicit free surface. The latter combined |
---|
| 193 | with non-linear free surface requires the dynamical tendency being updated prior tracers tendency to ensure |
---|
| 194 | conservation. Note the use of time integrated fluxes issued from the barotropic loop in subsequent calculations |
---|
| 195 | of tracer advection and in the continuity equation. Details about the time-splitting scheme can be found |
---|
[11263] | 196 | in \autoref{subsec:DYN_spg_ts}. |
---|
[10354] | 197 | } |
---|
[10414] | 198 | \end{center} |
---|
| 199 | \end{figure} |
---|
[2282] | 200 | %>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
---|
| 201 | %} |
---|
| 202 | |
---|
| 203 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
| 204 | % The Modified Leapfrog -- Asselin Filter scheme |
---|
| 205 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
[9393] | 206 | \section{Modified Leapfrog -- Asselin filter scheme} |
---|
[9407] | 207 | \label{sec:STP_mLF} |
---|
[2282] | 208 | |
---|
[11263] | 209 | Significant changes have been introduced by \cite{leclair.madec_OM09} in the LF-RA scheme in order to |
---|
[10501] | 210 | ensure tracer conservation and to allow the use of a much smaller value of the Asselin filter parameter. |
---|
[10354] | 211 | The modifications affect both the forcing and filtering treatments in the LF-RA scheme. |
---|
[2282] | 212 | |
---|
[10354] | 213 | In a classical LF-RA environment, the forcing term is centred in time, |
---|
[11512] | 214 | \ie\ it is time-stepped over a $2 \rdt$ period: |
---|
[10501] | 215 | $x^t = x^t + 2 \rdt Q^t$ where $Q$ is the forcing applied to $x$, |
---|
[10354] | 216 | and the time filter is given by \autoref{eq:STP_asselin} so that $Q$ is redistributed over several time step. |
---|
[2282] | 217 | In the modified LF-RA environment, these two formulations have been replaced by: |
---|
[10501] | 218 | \begin{gather} |
---|
| 219 | \label{eq:STP_forcing} |
---|
| 220 | x^{t + \rdt} = x^{t - \rdt} + \rdt \lt( Q^{t - \rdt / 2} + Q^{t + \rdt / 2} \rt) \\ |
---|
| 221 | \label{eq:STP_RA} |
---|
| 222 | x_F^t = x^t + \gamma \, \lt( x_F^{t - \rdt} - 2 x^t + x^{t + \rdt} \rt) |
---|
| 223 | - \gamma \, \rdt \, \lt( Q^{t + \rdt / 2} - Q^{t - \rdt / 2} \rt) |
---|
| 224 | \end{gather} |
---|
[10354] | 225 | The change in the forcing formulation given by \autoref{eq:STP_forcing} (see \autoref{fig:MLF_forcing}) |
---|
| 226 | has a significant effect: |
---|
[11263] | 227 | the forcing term no longer excites the divergence of odd and even time steps \citep{leclair.madec_OM09}. |
---|
[2282] | 228 | % forcing seen by the model.... |
---|
[11263] | 229 | This property improves the LF-RA scheme in two aspects. |
---|
[2282] | 230 | First, the LF-RA can now ensure the local and global conservation of tracers. |
---|
[10354] | 231 | Indeed, time filtering is no longer required on the forcing part. |
---|
[11263] | 232 | The influence of the Asselin filter on the forcing is explicitly removed by adding a new term in the filter |
---|
[10354] | 233 | (last term in \autoref{eq:STP_RA} compared to \autoref{eq:STP_asselin}). |
---|
| 234 | Since the filtering of the forcing was the source of non-conservation in the classical LF-RA scheme, |
---|
[11263] | 235 | the modified formulation becomes conservative \citep{leclair.madec_OM09}. |
---|
[10501] | 236 | Second, the LF-RA becomes a truly quasi -second order scheme. |
---|
[10354] | 237 | Indeed, \autoref{eq:STP_forcing} used in combination with a careful treatment of static instability |
---|
[11512] | 238 | (\autoref{subsec:ZDF_evd}) and of the TKE physics (\autoref{subsec:ZDF_tke_ene}) |
---|
[11263] | 239 | (the two other main sources of time step divergence), |
---|
[10501] | 240 | allows a reduction by two orders of magnitude of the Asselin filter parameter. |
---|
[2282] | 241 | |
---|
[10354] | 242 | Note that the forcing is now provided at the middle of a time step: |
---|
[10501] | 243 | $Q^{t + \rdt / 2}$ is the forcing applied over the $[t,t + \rdt]$ time interval. |
---|
[10354] | 244 | This and the change in the time filter, \autoref{eq:STP_RA}, |
---|
[11263] | 245 | allows for an exact evaluation of the contribution due to the forcing term between any two time steps, |
---|
[10354] | 246 | even if separated by only $\rdt$ since the time filter is no longer applied to the forcing term. |
---|
[2282] | 247 | |
---|
| 248 | %>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
---|
[10354] | 249 | \begin{figure}[!t] |
---|
| 250 | \begin{center} |
---|
[11263] | 251 | \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig_MLF_forcing} |
---|
[10414] | 252 | \caption{ |
---|
| 253 | \protect\label{fig:MLF_forcing} |
---|
[10354] | 254 | Illustration of forcing integration methods. |
---|
| 255 | (top) ''Traditional'' formulation: |
---|
| 256 | the forcing is defined at the same time as the variable to which it is applied |
---|
[10501] | 257 | (integer value of the time step index) and it is applied over a $2 \rdt$ period. |
---|
[10354] | 258 | (bottom) modified formulation: |
---|
| 259 | the forcing is defined in the middle of the time (integer and a half value of the time step index) and |
---|
[10501] | 260 | the mean of two successive forcing values ($n - 1 / 2$, $n + 1 / 2$) is applied over a $2 \rdt$ period. |
---|
[10354] | 261 | } |
---|
| 262 | \end{center} |
---|
| 263 | \end{figure} |
---|
[2282] | 264 | %>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
---|
| 265 | |
---|
| 266 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
| 267 | % Start/Restart strategy |
---|
| 268 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
| 269 | \section{Start/Restart strategy} |
---|
[9407] | 270 | \label{sec:STP_rst} |
---|
[9376] | 271 | |
---|
[2282] | 272 | %--------------------------------------------namrun------------------------------------------- |
---|
[10146] | 273 | \nlst{namrun} |
---|
[2282] | 274 | %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
| 275 | |
---|
[10354] | 276 | The first time step of this three level scheme when starting from initial conditions is a forward step |
---|
| 277 | (Euler time integration): |
---|
[10414] | 278 | \[ |
---|
| 279 | % \label{eq:DOM_euler} |
---|
| 280 | x^1 = x^0 + \rdt \ \text{RHS}^0 |
---|
| 281 | \] |
---|
[11512] | 282 | This is done simply by keeping the leapfrog environment (\ie\ the \autoref{eq:STP} three level time stepping) but |
---|
[10501] | 283 | setting all $x^0$ (\textit{before}) and $x^1$ (\textit{now}) fields equal at the first time step and |
---|
[11512] | 284 | using half the value of a leapfrog time step ($2 \rdt$). |
---|
[2282] | 285 | |
---|
[10354] | 286 | It is also possible to restart from a previous computation, by using a restart file. |
---|
| 287 | The restart strategy is designed to ensure perfect restartability of the code: |
---|
| 288 | the user should obtain the same results to machine precision either by |
---|
| 289 | running the model for $2N$ time steps in one go, |
---|
| 290 | or by performing two consecutive experiments of $N$ steps with a restart. |
---|
[10501] | 291 | This requires saving two time levels and many auxiliary data in the restart files in machine precision. |
---|
[2282] | 292 | |
---|
[11263] | 293 | Note that the time step $\rdt$, is also saved in the restart file. |
---|
[11512] | 294 | When restarting, if the time step has been changed, or one of the prognostic variables at \textit{before} time step |
---|
| 295 | is missing, an Euler time stepping scheme is imposed. A forward initial step can still be enforced by the user by setting |
---|
| 296 | the namelist variable \np{nn\_euler}\forcode{=0}. Other options to control the time integration of the model |
---|
| 297 | are defined through the \nam{run} namelist variables. |
---|
[2282] | 298 | %%% |
---|
| 299 | \gmcomment{ |
---|
| 300 | add here how to force the restart to contain only one time step for operational purposes |
---|
| 301 | |
---|
| 302 | add also the idea of writing several restart for seasonal forecast : how is it done ? |
---|
| 303 | |
---|
[11512] | 304 | verify that all namelist pararmeters are truly described |
---|
[2282] | 305 | |
---|
| 306 | a word on the check of restart ..... |
---|
| 307 | } |
---|
| 308 | %%% |
---|
| 309 | |
---|
[11512] | 310 | \gmcomment{ % add a subsection here |
---|
[2282] | 311 | |
---|
| 312 | %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
| 313 | % Time Domain |
---|
| 314 | % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
| 315 | \subsection{Time domain} |
---|
[9407] | 316 | \label{subsec:STP_time} |
---|
[2282] | 317 | %--------------------------------------------namrun------------------------------------------- |
---|
[10146] | 318 | |
---|
[11512] | 319 | \nlst{namdom} |
---|
[2282] | 320 | %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
---|
| 321 | |
---|
[11512] | 322 | Options are defined through the \nam{dom} namelist variables. |
---|
[2282] | 323 | \colorbox{yellow}{add here a few word on nit000 and nitend} |
---|
| 324 | |
---|
| 325 | \colorbox{yellow}{Write documentation on the calendar and the key variable adatrj} |
---|
| 326 | |
---|
| 327 | add a description of daymod, and the model calandar (leap-year and co) |
---|
| 328 | |
---|
| 329 | } %% end add |
---|
| 330 | |
---|
| 331 | |
---|
| 332 | |
---|
| 333 | %% |
---|
[11512] | 334 | \gmcomment{ % add implicit in vvl case and Crant-Nicholson scheme |
---|
[2282] | 335 | |
---|
| 336 | Implicit time stepping in case of variable volume thickness. |
---|
| 337 | |
---|
| 338 | Tracer case (NB for momentum in vector invariant form take care!) |
---|
| 339 | |
---|
| 340 | \begin{flalign*} |
---|
[10501] | 341 | &\frac{\lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t+1}-\lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t-1}}{2\rdt} |
---|
| 342 | \equiv \text{RHS}+ \delta_k \lt[ {\frac{A_w^{vt} }{e_{3w}^{t+1} }\delta_{k + 1/2} \lt[ {T^{t+1}} \rt]} |
---|
| 343 | \rt] \\ |
---|
| 344 | &\lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t+1}-\lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t-1} |
---|
| 345 | \equiv {2\rdt} \ \text{RHS}+ {2\rdt} \ \delta_k \lt[ {\frac{A_w^{vt} }{e_{3w}^{t+1} }\delta_{k + 1/2} \lt[ {T^{t+1}} \rt]} |
---|
| 346 | \rt] \\ |
---|
| 347 | &\lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t+1}-\lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t-1} |
---|
[10414] | 348 | \equiv 2\rdt \ \text{RHS} |
---|
[10501] | 349 | + 2\rdt \ \lt\{ \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k + 1/2} [ T_{k +1}^{t+1} - T_k ^{t+1} ] |
---|
| 350 | - \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k - 1/2} [ T_k ^{t+1} - T_{k -1}^{t+1} ] \rt\} \\ |
---|
[10414] | 351 | &\\ |
---|
[10501] | 352 | &\lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t+1} |
---|
| 353 | - {2\rdt} \ \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k + 1/2} T_{k +1}^{t+1} |
---|
| 354 | + {2\rdt} \ \lt\{ \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k + 1/2} |
---|
| 355 | + \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k - 1/2} \rt\} T_{k }^{t+1} |
---|
| 356 | - {2\rdt} \ \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k - 1/2} T_{k -1}^{t+1} \\ |
---|
| 357 | &\equiv \lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t-1} + {2\rdt} \ \text{RHS} \\ |
---|
| 358 | % |
---|
[2282] | 359 | \end{flalign*} |
---|
| 360 | \begin{flalign*} |
---|
[10414] | 361 | \allowdisplaybreaks |
---|
| 362 | \intertext{ Tracer case } |
---|
| 363 | % |
---|
[10501] | 364 | & \qquad \qquad \quad - {2\rdt} \ \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k + 1/2} |
---|
| 365 | \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad T_{k +1}^{t+1} \\ |
---|
| 366 | &+ {2\rdt} \ \biggl\{ (e_{3t})_{k }^{t+1} \bigg. + \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k + 1/2} |
---|
| 367 | + \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k - 1/2} \bigg. \biggr\} \ \ \ T_{k }^{t+1} &&\\ |
---|
| 368 | & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \ \ - {2\rdt} \ \lt[ \frac{A_w^{vt}}{e_{3w}^{t+1}} \rt]_{k - 1/2} \quad \ \ T_{k -1}^{t+1} |
---|
| 369 | \ \equiv \ \lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t-1} + {2\rdt} \ \text{RHS} \\ |
---|
[10414] | 370 | % |
---|
[2282] | 371 | \end{flalign*} |
---|
| 372 | \begin{flalign*} |
---|
[10414] | 373 | \allowdisplaybreaks |
---|
| 374 | \intertext{ Tracer content case } |
---|
| 375 | % |
---|
[10501] | 376 | & - {2\rdt} \ & \frac{(A_w^{vt})_{k + 1/2}} {(e_{3w})_{k + 1/2}^{t+1}\;(e_{3t})_{k +1}^{t+1}} && \ \lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_{k +1}^{t+1} &\\ |
---|
| 377 | & + {2\rdt} \ \lt[ 1 \rt.+ & \frac{(A_w^{vt})_{k + 1/2}} {(e_{3w})_{k + 1/2}^{t+1}\;(e_{3t})_k^{t+1}} |
---|
| 378 | + & \frac{(A_w^{vt})_{k - 1/2}} {(e_{3w})_{k - 1/2}^{t+1}\;(e_{3t})_k^{t+1}} \lt. \rt] & \lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_{k }^{t+1} &\\ |
---|
| 379 | & - {2\rdt} \ & \frac{(A_w^{vt})_{k - 1/2}} {(e_{3w})_{k - 1/2}^{t+1}\;(e_{3t})_{k -1}^{t+1}} &\ \lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_{k -1}^{t+1} |
---|
| 380 | \equiv \lt( e_{3t}\,T \rt)_k^{t-1} + {2\rdt} \ \text{RHS} & |
---|
[2282] | 381 | \end{flalign*} |
---|
| 382 | |
---|
| 383 | %% |
---|
| 384 | } |
---|
[10501] | 385 | |
---|
[10414] | 386 | \biblio |
---|
| 387 | |
---|
[10442] | 388 | \pindex |
---|
| 389 | |
---|
[6997] | 390 | \end{document} |
---|