Version 7 (modified by techene, 8 months ago) (diff)

Name and subject of the action

Last edition: 10/29/20 16:33:57 by techene

The PI is responsible to closely follow the progress of the action, and especially to contact NEMO project manager if the delay on preview (or review) are longer than the 2 weeks expected.

  1. Summary
  2. Preview
  3. Tests
  4. Review


Action optimisation of the vertical scale factor e3 computation
PI(S) Techene, Madec
Digest compute e3 on the fly from e3_0(:,:,:,Ktl) * ( 1 + ssh(:,:,Ktl) / h_0( :,: ) * mask( :,:,: ) instead of storing e3t/u/v/w/f…
Dependencies If any
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/2020/dev_r12377_KERNEL-06_techene_e3
Previewer(s) Madec, Chanut, Masson
Reviewer(s) Madec
Ticket #2385


The current e3[P] at P-point computation uses interpolation of the r3t 4D table at P = {u-, v-, w-, f-, uw-, vw-} points. This means 7 4D tables stored in memory. The proposed optimisation consists in computing e3[P](ji,jj,jk,Ktl) on the fly using the r3[P] = ssh[P] / h_0 and the e3[P]_0. r3[P] is a 2D table, then this means only 4 2D tables stored in memory. z-tilde management is done through e3[P]_0 that may varies with time in the z-tilde case. Asselin filter management is done recomputing r3[P] directly with the filtered ssh.


Describe flow chart of the changes in the code.
List the Fortran modules and subroutines to be created/edited/deleted.
Detailed list of new variables to be defined (including namelists),
give for each the chosen name and description wrt coding rules.

Step 1 : Check the error for e3t, e3w between the current way to compute e3 at T-, W-point and the proposed way to compute e3 at T-, W-point.

Because this change is likely to induce changes in the code we need to insure and because we need backward compatibility, we will duplicate the modules that will be modified and implement changes gradually.

Step 2 : First we change only the core routine in domvvl which should be changed into domQE.

  • add new variables, duplicate step into steplf and domvvl into domQE
  • change interpolation routines into scaling routines in domQE

Step 3 : Then we change the Asselin filtering routine indeed because water forcing are applied locally.

  • change Asselin routines (maybe not required since e3 scale with vertical with JC modif)

Step 4 : Finally we remove the interpol routine in the whole code

  • remove interpolating routine in all the code (AGRIF, OFF,…)
  • use a SUBSTITUTE when there are e3 CALL
  • make some changes in step and domQE to have the whole thing consistent

Documentation updates

Using previous parts, define the main changes to be done in the NEMO literature (manuals, guide, web pages, …).


Since the preview step must be completed before the PI starts the coding, the previewer(s) answers are expected to be completed within the two weeks after the PI has sent the request to the previewer(s).
Then an iterative process should take place between PI and previewer(s) in order to find a consensus

Possible bottlenecks:

  • the methodology
  • the flowchart and list of routines to be changed
  • the new list of variables wrt coding rules
  • the summary of updates in literature

Once an agreement has been reached, preview is ended and the PI can start the development into his branch.


Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.

This part should contain the detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) and detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated on specified configurations used for this test

Regular checks:

  • Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
  • Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
  • Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: are there no differences when activating the development?
  • If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?
  • If some differences appear, is the impact as expected on model configurations?
  • Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
  • If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
  • Are there significant changes in run time/memory?

We want to track and maybe explain the differences observed at every steps. Reference set up : For that we produce a reference data set with the trunk -r 12377 using the GYRE_PISCES configuration where top cpp_key has been removed. We run it on 120 time steps. The drag coefficient is zero. We XIOS output an averaged field every 5 days.


A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).


  • Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
  • Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at preview step?
  • Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at preview step?
    If, not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
  • Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
  • Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
  • Is the development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
  • Is the project literature (manual, guide, web, …) now updated or completed following the proposed summary in preview section?


Is the review fully successful? If not, please indicate what is still missing

Once review is successful, the development must be scheduled for merge during next Merge Party Meeting.